Jump to content

Talk:Naomi Osaka: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 413: Line 413:
:::I apologise for my tone. The fact remains that you have come to the talk page to find a consensus for your edit and failed. It has nothing to do with voting. It's simply that ''nobody'' has supported your edit. Doing the same edit while you are failing to get a consensus for it on the talk page is edit-warring. Please don't do it again. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk:Scolaire|talk]]) 11:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
:::I apologise for my tone. The fact remains that you have come to the talk page to find a consensus for your edit and failed. It has nothing to do with voting. It's simply that ''nobody'' has supported your edit. Doing the same edit while you are failing to get a consensus for it on the talk page is edit-warring. Please don't do it again. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk:Scolaire|talk]]) 11:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
:::The content was {{diff|Naomi Osaka|prev|867135050|added}} by {{U|Sportsfan77777}} while preparing this article for Good Article status. I wonder whether he would have any comment. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk:Scolaire|talk]]) 12:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
:::The content was {{diff|Naomi Osaka|prev|867135050|added}} by {{U|Sportsfan77777}} while preparing this article for Good Article status. I wonder whether he would have any comment. [[User:Scolaire|Scolaire]] ([[User talk:Scolaire|talk]]) 12:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

:: I didn't come to this talk page to gain consensus, the consensus already exists due to wikipedia policies. I came here because you were whining here and I thought it polite to respond. MOS and undue weight trump any minor voting you might indulge in on this talk page. [[User:Sennen goroshi|Sennen Goroshi ! ]] ([[User talk:Sennen goroshi|talk]]) 15:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:49, 16 June 2019

RFC about nationality / ethnicity in the lead

There's a clear and strong consensus for the nuanced wording proposed in option #6.  Swarm  talk  01:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should the lead describe her as an American and/or a Haitian tennis player, or only as a Japanese tennis player? Iffy★Chat -- 17:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Options to choose from (full wording details can be discussed separately):

  1. Japanese only
  2. Japanese and American
  3. Japanese and Haitian
  4. Japanese, American and Haitian
  5. American only
  6. Not describe her as "x" or "x and y" or "x, y and z", but have a short sentence stating her place of birth, her parentage and her residence – see here, where the wording is: "Naomi Osaka is a professional tennis player who represents Japan in competition. Born in Osaka to a Haitian father and a Japanese mother, she has lived in the United States from an early age." (added by Scolaire (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Survey

  • Support 1 as this is how the vast majority of RS describe her, and it's the only country she's represented as a tennis player. Iffy★Chat -- 18:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    To add to my opening comment, I oppose all the other options per WP:ETHNICITY. I weak oppose 2, 3 and 4 as they clutter the lead with too much information that isn't directly relevant to her notability. I strong oppose 5 and 6 as they're the literally supporting the opposite of why I support option 1. The RS primarily describe her as Japanese, only adding other countries when it's relevant to the article, so adding them to the lead is WP:UNDUE. Has anyone come up with a reason not to describe her as Japanese? Iffy★Chat -- 08:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Because Japanese on its own doesn't describe her? Because she has a Haitian father and US citizenship? And what is this "majority of RS"? There are highly reliable sources (Washington Post, Boston Globe. Guardian and at least six others, as well as two interviews and a tweet from Osaka herself) that describe her as other than just "Japanese". Scolaire (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't object to a 1+6 option if the lead is expanded, but 6 on its own completely ignores that her claim to notability has been as a Japanese tennis player, which should be in the lead. Iffy★Chat -- 16:37, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Her claim to notability has been as a tennis player representing Japan. Option 6 would state that in the first sentence – see here. --Scolaire (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Her notability is as a Japanese tennis player'. It would make sense to put it in the first sentence, but actually #6 says nothing about what exact sentence or the exact wording. You give an example but it is not the only way #6 could be written. Haitian father could certainly be written as Haitian born father (since he is Haitian-American) and Japanese born mother. The details would have to be worked out later if it got adopted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option 6 had a link to this version, but nobody seems to have read it, so I have now stated the exact wording. Not sure how you've established that her notability is as a Japanese player rather than Haitian-Japanese or any of the other permutations, or why we're having an RfC if that is already established. She's notable for her tennis, and she represents Japan; that much can be unambiguously stated. Scolaire (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@R9tgokunks: Since you replied without answering my question, let me repeat it: Please point me to the relevant policy or guideline upon which you base your assertion. KalHolmann (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Basic encyclopedia editing. It's not encyclopedic to not include that she isn't also American alongside being Japanese. We aren't beholden to follow the definitions of tennis agencies when we have our own way of editing encyclopedically. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 19:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@R9tgokunks: "Basic encyclopedia editing" is an evasion. I asked for a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Evidently you cannot (or perhaps will not) provide one. KalHolmann (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evasion. It is a grave mistake to merely include that she is just Japanese. Factually, this is simply false. She was raised and lives in America with American citizenship, and, for what it's worth, doesn't speak Japanese fluently. If I was Ugandan and I registered with the Korean tennis association but wasn't raised there or lived there, and didn't even speak the language fully, it would be misleading to say in a lede that I was merely Korean - R9tgokunks ⭕ 19:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@R9tgokunks: Why do I get the feeling that you're making up these editing rules as you go along? KalHolmann (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly because you can't comprehend what I have been saying... I don't know. Maybe I haven't been clear. I've stated that same reasoning a few times now, I'm not sure you've been paying attention... Also, I have been editing here for almost 13 years and It seems you've only been here for about a year. I've been here long enough to know that omitting information is just a mistake and invites trouble for years to come from persons with motives while editing, which is common. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2, she has dual citizenship (Japanese and American). She was born in Japan but has lived in US since she was 3.[1],[2] Haitian is obviously significant as well but it doesn't appear she's lived there and she apparently does not have Haitian citizenship, so I think Haitian makes more sense in the early life section explaining her father is from Haiti, while Japanese and American makes sense in the lead.DynaGirl (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2. The lead should mention her dual citizenship, and that as a professional tennis player, she most frequently (only?) represents Japan in these competitions. Take the case that once she retires, she will still be an American-Japanese dual citizen, but she will no longer be a Japanese tennis player. --Masem (t) 20:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "Only". When she retires she would probably be like other players... is a retired Japanese professional tennis player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In nearly all standard readings, the phrase "Japanese professional tennis player" means "a profession tennis player with Japanese nationality" which is not true. She has American and Japanese nationality. That's why saying she represents Japan but has American-Japanese nationality needs to be clearly defined in the lede. --Masem (t) 23:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2. The lede summarises the article and as she has dual citizenship having been born in America it is relevant to be there. Saying 'Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997)[5] is an American born, Japanese professional tennis player' would be appropriate.Blethering Scot 21:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Scot, while I agree 2 seems to make the most sense, I think you'd need a different way to phrase this because she was apparently born in Japan. She has US citizenship and has lived in US since age 3. Maybe something like. "...is a Japanese and American tennis player who plays professionally for Japan." DynaGirl (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per the governing bodies of tennis, she is not an American tennis player. She is a Japanese tennis player. She was born in Japan and plays tennis for Japan and also has citizenship in the USA. It can certainly be worded differently to get around that and add American or United States in the lead somewhere. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2 She was born in Japan and raised in the U.S. holding dual citizenship and she currently lives in Florida while representing Japan.Mcelite (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2: "Japanese-American" reflects best who she is, a dual citizen of Japan and the US who has lived in the US most of her life while representing her native country internationally in a sport. Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise approach, roughly equivalent to Option 6 (added): Open the 1st para as currently in the article: "Naomi Osaka is a Japanese professional tennis player. She first came to prominence ..." etc. Then add this sentence to the lead, perhaps at the end:
"Osaka has lived in the United States since age three; she is of Japanese-Haitian descent and is a dual US-Japanese citizen."
There's a section dedicated to Osaka's personal background, so it's appropriate to include a sentence to this effect in the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No that's not entirely correct. She's not merely of Japanese descent. She is directly Japanese. She was born there to a Japanese mother and still holds that country's nationality and is a citizen of it. Descent is only correct for her Haitianness.Tvx1 13:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added option 6. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added #5 - American only. In the lead being asked about, should follow MOS:OPENPARABIO and give nationality. Race and finer details belong in the body. And from what I see, her primary nationality is that of the United States. I see she has dual citizenship, but the one she is using seems the U.S. one. Markbassett (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Markbassett: thanks for pointing to MOS:OPENPARABIO, which advises: "The opening paragraph should usually state…Context (location or nationality)." Please note that our Infobox links to Naomi Osaka's official website, where her profile lists "Nationality – Japanese" and describes her as "the first Japanese woman to win the Indian Wells Masters in California (USA)." Does not Naomi Osaka's official website qualify as the definitive source in this matter? KalHolmann (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:KalHolmann - I am looking at more detailed secondary RS sources, where she appears to be an American based in Florida who is playing tennis for Japan. Nationality says for dual nationality, States may determine the most effective nationality. There is no official case, but it appears by residence and language that she has put the United States as the effective nationality. Of course, she may change or repudiate her United States nationality, but at the moment she seems raised and located in the U.S. and that seems the nationality she is using. Markbassett (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Markbassett: So when she tells the world via her official website, "My nationality is Japanese," you say in effect, "No, dear, you are wrong. You're not Japanese. Let me mansplain this to you." Right. KalHolmann (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@KalHolmann: so when she tells the world via Twitter, "I never know what to do when someone asks me where I’m from, I just say FL, because saying Japan starts an unnecessary conversation" ("Japanese, Haitian, and now a Grand Slam winner", Washington Post, 10 September 2018), what would you say to her then? Scolaire (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:KalHolmann - Japanese is the nation she plays for, signed up by her father since it would open up more opportunities. It isn’t her personal life. She tells interviewers she is from FL, and has lived in the United States since age 3, and is not able to speak Japanese. Nationality is a choice, but actions speak louder than one casual word. For WP we are looking for Nationality, and RS are portraying her heritage or nation of play as well as her citizenship... The RFC is trying to sort it out. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, speaking of actions, she proudly played for Japan's Fed Cup team. That's clear expression of her nationality through action.Tvx1 16:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No shit! A player who's registered with the Japanese federation played for the Japanese team? ZOMG. She couldn't possibly have a Haitian father, then, or care about the US at all. Scolaire (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tvx1 - her official Nationality ... is not going to be determined by what group she plays for. The legal standing has not been put to an official statement, but is obviously the United States. Just saying, the legalities are what they are. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As demonstrated very clearly in the article, she has two official nationalities. She's legally both Japanese and American and has been since birth. After all while her father was born in Haiti, he had already become an American citizen when Naomi came about. In fact, he already was when met Naomi's mother. An official nationality is not simply determined by where one lives.Tvx1 12:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tvx1 She has however only one effective and active Nationality, that of the United States. While one may have Citizenship in multiple places, by birth or Naturalization or purchase, her Multiple citizenship is in this case pretty simple from the facts to be: An American who plays tennis for Japan. (Should she marry some nice Japanese fellow and move there, or marry a nice Israeli, convert and move there, etcetera.... that could change things. But right now, she is simply American.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No she has not. She has two effective and active nationalities. Japanese and American. And the activeness of her former has been used to register her with the Japanese Tennis Association. Her active Japanese nationality is the one she competes under in tennis and the one whose national teams she plays for. The place where she lives is in the only determinate factor. We all know one cannot live in two separate places simultaneously. In fact she barely mentions here American nationality in interviews. It seems you have little understanding of how nationality works.Tvx1 12:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tvx1 Read Nationality on thru - it is legally determined by the nation she is participating in, living, paying taxes, speaks the language, and that is the United States. Nationality says nothing about being determined by one plays a sport, though one usually does tend to play where one lives. People here have mentioned individuals who play outside their nationality, Wiki even has lists such as List of foreign-born players in Spanish men's national basketball team, List of foreign Premier League players, Foreign players in the National Football League, etcetera. If you don't like the logic, fine -- but simply accept my input was the WP guidance calls for nationality, and that legally her effective Nationality is solely the United States. If you do not understand my input, feel free to ask. If you do not agree to it, feel free to make your own input or to try and convince me with WP Policy and facts other than where she plays. (As I started knowing that and have already old you it does not matter to Nationality.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have done so multiple times and it contains nothing that support your claims. Nationality, which is simply an article not a guideline or policy, does not mention taxes or residence at all and only mentions language with regards to ethnicity. The basic stipulation of this article is that nationality is a legal relationship between an individual person and a sovereign state. Well, Osaka has had this legal relationship with two sovereign states since birth: US and Japan. Both states have the right to grant rights and impose restrictions on her. She has the right of return in both states. She received a passport from both, she is a full legal national AND citizen of both, and so on. There is also something called dual nationality. I don't understand why you are refusing to entertain that concept. Whether or not someone is a legal national of a sovereign state is determined by the state in question and not by Wikipedia or their users. We merely report what the reliable sources state. In this case we have reliable sources stating that two states have independently determined that miss Osaka is a legal national of theirs and both have even granted here full citizenship. Contrary to what you believe, it's perfectly possible for one to have multiple active legal nationalities. And this is an example of such a case.Tvx1 11:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
She is primarily notable as tennis player not as a person living in the US. And in her primarily notable activity she uses Japanese as her main nationality. She is registered by her father with the Japanese Tennis Association, she plays under the Japanese flag and she has played for the Japanese Fed Cup team. That's the most important thing here.Tvx1 13:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Mashu Baker (Olympic gold-medal winner in judo), born in Japan, Japanese mother and American father. His lead on Wikipedia:
„Mashu Baker or Matthew Baker (ベイカー 茉秋 Beikā Mashū, born 25 September 1994 in Tokyo), is a male Japanese judoka. His father is an American. His parents divorced when he was little and was raised by his mother. He started judo at the age of 7. His favorite technique is Ouchi Gari. In 2015, he won the bronze medal in the Middleweight (90 kg) division at the 2015 World Judo Championships. He is currently ranked No. 1 in the world (as of 28 November 2016). He won the gold medal in under 90 kg division in 2016 Rio Olympics.”
• Asuka Cambridge (Olympic silver-medal winner in the 4x100 track relay), born in Jamaica, Japanese mother and Jamaican father. His lead on Wikipedia:
„Asuka Antonio "Aska" Cambridge (ケンブリッジ 飛鳥 Kenburijji Asuka, born May 31, 1993) is a Japanese track and field sprinter who competes in the 100 metres and 200 metres. His personal best of 10.08 in the 100m gives him Japan's 9th fastest time. He is a two-time East Asian Games gold medallist and a relay bronze medallist at the World Junior Championships in Athletics. His father is Jamaican and his mother is Japanese. In the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, Cambridge was part of the 4 × 100 m relay for Japan, which took the silver medal in the final.”
• Abdul Hakim Sani Brown (track and field sprinter), born in Japan, Japanese mother and Ghanaian father. His lead on Wikipedia (beginning):
„Abdul Hakim Sani Brown (サニブラウン・アブデル・ハキーム Saniburaun Abuderu Hakīmu, March 6, 1999) is a Japanese athlete specialising in sprinting events. Sani Brown has a Ghanaian father and a Japanese mother. Sani Brown won the 100 metres at the 2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics setting a championship record of 10.28 (−0.4) in the final.” Zor77 20:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Bernard Ackah - "Bernard Ackah (born April 9, 1972) is a German-born, Japanese-based Ivorian taekwondo practitioner, kickboxer, mixed martial artist and comedian."
• Issey Maholo - "Issey Jose Maholo (マホロ一生 Maholo Issey, born 24 March 1985 in Tokyo) is a Japanese-born, Japanese-Congolese soccer player with American citizenship who plays as a goalkeeper for Hong Kong First Division League side Hong Kong FC."
• Ado Onaiwu - "Ado Onaiwu (オナイウ 阿道, born 8 November 1995) is a Japanese footballer who plays as a forward for Renofa Yamaguchi in J2 League. He is the son of a Nigerian father and a Japanese mother."
[3] - Recent The Brown Daily Herald article. Zor77 14:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Comment on validity of RFC

Naomi Osaka has dual American and Japanese citizenship. For the record, Naomi has no Haitian citizenship, which immediately disqualifies option 3 and 4. Also, for what it's worth, while she was born in Japan, she was raised in America and does not speak fluent Japanese, and she currently lives in America. This RFC goes against the common method of dealing with dual American citizenship on Wikipedia. Normally if someone has dual citizenship in one country and the US, that is mentioned straightaway in the lede. Omitting her American citizenship from the lede is tantamount to censorship.

For more examples of how dual citizenship is treated on Wikipedia see:


In sporting world articles, one can represent another country without having that citizenship as well, or something similar to Osaka. This is a common example, for instance, in FIFA. Examples:

  • Roman Neustädter, Russian , but played for Germany multiple times, but never was considered German, as he had no German citizenship.
  • Mário Fernandes, "Brazillian-Russian", born in Brazil, now represents Russia, has dual citizenship but does not speak Russian.


- R9tgokunks ⭕ 18:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Footballers are less associated with their national team than in tennis. (e.g. Football is not a sport where "national flags are commonly used as representations of sporting nationality in a given sport.") Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this particular case is a little more complicated. You do have a point since when actress Emily Blunt gained USA citizenship her lead was changed to British-American actress. However in tennis she is registered as Japanese and you can only represent one country in any international event. She may be a Japanese-American individual walking down the street, but she is a professional Japanese tennis player. Milos Raonic was born somewhere else but is a Canadian tennis player. If you would also like somewhere in the lead paragraph for it to state she has United States and Japanese citizenship, that's reasonable though it's already in the section below. What seems strange would be Haitian-Japanese (although it's easily sourced). That would be like wikipedia saying Serena Williams is an African-American tennis player. That would sound weird... she is an American tennis player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that editors who misspell the word validity as "validitiy" [sic] in a subsection heading ought to be open to correction from another editor trying to be helpful, rather than reverting it and threatening to take it to ANI. KalHolmann (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Fyunck(click): - yeah, but we aren't beholden to the definitions of the sporting world. We operate encyclopedically, including all information. For instance, If I was Ugandan and I registered with the Korean tennis association but wasn't raised there or lived there, and didn't even speak the language fully, it would be misleading to say in a lede that I was merely Korean. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 19:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It might be misleading to say you are Korean but if you had never played tennis in Uganda, and the ITF allowed you to play for Korea, you would be a Korean professional tennis player. You would also have Ugandan citizenship, but you would be a Korean tennis player. You could always word it as a professional tennis player representing Korea. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would still omit the Ugandan citizenship from the lede. it's just not factually sound. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually sound if it is somewhere else in the article. Some people might have 3 or 4 citizenships. We aren't required to list them all in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck(click):...Not sure what you're talking about? She only has 2 instances of citizenship... not "3 or 4". It's a simple fix as shown on other articles that I presented. And she only has dual citizenship. It would only be a problem if she had more than 2. Saying Japanese and American covers it. It's not that messy or complicated. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How would you word it? She is a Japanese tennis player with United States and Japanese citizenship? We don't do that with everyone, such as Angelina Jolie. We don't list her as a Cambodian actress just because she has two citizenships. Nor do we do the same with Kirsten Dunst who has German citizenship. We take it case by case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Saying Japanese and American covers it."

.
"Japanese and American."
- R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not even close to covering it. No context at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The lede isn't for context. It summarises the article. see WP:LEDE. As you know many other articles on living persons use the same format I just used. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 20:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And many don't. I simply asked how you would word it and what you gave was useless. "Japanese and American"... that's the entire lead.... nothing else? How do you work that in the sentence to be factual? She is not an American professional tennis player. She is a Japanese professional tennis player with United States and Japanese citizenship. How would you word it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that mentioned both her U.S. and Japanese citizen is the correct way of going through this.Mcelite (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GiantSnowman:, she has dual citizenship, which should be mentioned per MOS:OPENPARABIO. Also, she currently lives in the U.S.A., as she was raised there. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 07:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mention the dual citizenship elsewhere in the article - not in the lede. Funny how people only care about her being American when she wins... GiantSnowman 07:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um. That's not a very erudite answer. So I'm not sure how long you've been editing here, but usually dual citizenship is mentioned in the lede when it's particularily notable. And people didn't really know about her until she won. See the graph at the top of this very page. That's a very ignorant statement for you to make. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 08:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • She's been notable enough to have a Wikipedia article since 2014, and was one of the 32 best players in the world before the tournament; it's not like she came out of nowhere to win a Grand Slam. Sure, she's more popular now, but it's not like the facts surrounding this RFC changed in that time. Iffy★Chat -- 08:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re: "Funny how people only care about her being American when she wins," I didn't even know she existed until she won in a controversial game. I'm guessing many other editors are here from a similar angle: People who hadn't heard about her before because they aren't into tennis, but care about one of the many social issues surrounding race that the tagline "first Japanese winner of the US Open" agitates. 96.41.225.223 (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate solution

Comment: I don't think the issue is with the first sentence. The issue is with the lead as a whole.

The first sentence should say "Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997)[5] is a Japanese professional tennis player." That paragraph should also mention she her career-high ranking and that she won the US Open.

Then, there should be a second paragraph that goes into her background, along the lines of "Born in Japan to a Haitian father and a Japanese mother, Osaka moved to the United States when she was three years old. She has dual Japanese and American citizenship. Osaka began playing tennis in the United States at the age of ??. She began playing on the ITF Women's Circuit at the age of 16."

Then, there should be a third paragraph that goes into more detail in summarizing the highlights of her professional career as a whole (compared to the first paragraph). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then why would we even have a personal section if all of it is going to be in the lead? It seems a little trivial to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sportsfan she appears to be American, not Japanese, in nationality. Where does she live, pay taxes, vote, speak the language... Multi ethnic and multi citizenship is mentionable, but should not distort the bulk of the situation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you're wrong. She does have a Japanese passport stating Japanese in the nationality field. She is primarily a tennis player and in the active she's primarily notable for, playing tennis, she clearly uses Japanese, a nationality she legally possesses, as her main nationality. She even played for their Fed Cup team.Tvx1 13:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tvx and with dual citizenship, her United States passport would list Nationality United States ... and she could also get a nice passport from Monaco if she invests there. Passport is not a tie to Nationality Markbassett (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant. Her nationality is not more important than the country she plays for. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sportsfan77777 -- MOS:OPENPARABIO says to include her nationality which is United States, though many here want to say dual citizen of United States and Japan. The lead should also mention that she is a tennis player and currently plays for the JTA. The phrase "American tennis player for the Japanese Tennis Association" conveys the nationality and team, the phrase "Japanese tennis player" is misleading. Should also mention her Haitian-Japanese heritage -- in her case these are three different things. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:OPENPARABIO says to include her nationality, but it doesn't say it has to be in the first sentence. The country she represents is more important than her nationality (regardless of whether her nationality is just Japanese, both Japanese and American, or just American), so that's what should go in the first sentence. It can be mentioned that she lives in the United States later on in the lead. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already wrote a proper, 180-word lead that summarised the entire article. Summarising the article includes summarising the Personal life section. That bit was reverted because of the discussion here. This was before the RfC was opened, by the way. That information ought to go back in the lead, otherwise it is not a proper summary of the article. Scolaire (talk) 09:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEAD says: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents They key words here are most important I would contend that her Haitianness and certainly Americanness, which is barely noted in the reliable sources, qualify as some of the most important content of the article. The most important information are her exploits in Tennis. Her being Japanese also meets the treshold since she's always identified with that in the sport and she has played for one of their national tennis team.Tvx1 14:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I wrote was a summary of what it says in the Personal life and family section, and her "Haitianness" and "Americanness" are important enough to merit a sizable chunk of that section, indeed of the article. As regards "reliable sources", I'll just paraphrase what I said in the survey above: The "barely noted in the reliable sources" argument is specious. See Washington Post (September 8, 2018): "Osaka, who is of Haitian-Japanese descent and was raised in the United States but plays for Japan", Boston Globe (September 09, 2018): "a 20-year-old of Haitian-Japanese ancestry who was raised in the United States but plays for Japan", Sky Sports (18/03/18): "The Haitian-Japanese", Tennis World USA (March 10, 2018): "the 20-year-old Haitian/Japanese", Tennis.com (March 08, 2018): "The Haitian-Japanese star", WTA Tennis: "the Haitian-Japanese said", Reuters (January 19, 2017): "the obvious talent Haitian-Japanese Osaka showed on court", The Guardian (9 Sep 2018): "when yet another journalist asked Osaka to explain her Haitian-Japanese heritage", Eurosport (18/03/2018): "The unseeded Haitian-Japanese player". --Scolaire (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Part of the confusion here is coming from the fact that it is not even clear what this RfC is for. Some people are advocating for what should be in the very first sentence, or the very first two sentences. Others are advocating for what should be in the lead as a whole. So... what is this RfC even for? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the wording, it's for the lead as a whole... i.e. somewhere in the paragraphs in the lead section. Details, such as precise wording and exact location of the lead paragraphs, would be discussed separately. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sportsfan, this RfC should not have been opened when it was opened in the way it was opened. I edited the lead at 09:33 (UTC) on 13 September in a way that avoided saying that she is an x-player or an x-y player or an x-y-z player by saying that she represents Japan, that she was born in Japan to a Haitian father and a Japanese mother, and that she has lived in the US since she was small. That was reverted at 17:07, and Iffy opened the RfC at 17:36 with the wording, "Should the lead describe her as an American and/or a Haitian tennis player, or only as a Japanese tennis player?", which excluded my proposed wording. It was not until 09:28 on 14 September that I was able to add the "shouldn't describe her as an anything player" option, by which time eleven people had already !voted, without being aware that that option existed. Two or three of those have come back since then to either change to that option or add it to their previous choice. The remainder very likely don't know that they !voted in a flawed RfC, and they should be notified, so that they can review their choice if they want. Scolaire (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think a lot of people are confused. When I initially voted for option 1, I meant that the first sentence should say that she "is a Japanese tennis player" or that she "represents Japan." I didn't mean to exclude the fact that she lives in the United States or that she has a Haitian background from the rest of the lead. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I left a short, neutral note on the talk pages of the six editors that had !voted/contributed before I added option 6 and hadn't contributed since, to let them know that another option was added. Scolaire (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the RFC is valuable for collecting a vote in an orderly fashion over an issue that's been circuitously argued for a month. Thanks for opening the RFC. 96.41.225.223 (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elaboration

This is clearly a situation where the usual formulation of the opening sentence ("George is a British comedian") is too simplistic. How about "Naomi Osaka is a Japanese and American professional tennis player who is registered with the Japan Tennis Association"? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about "Naomi Osaka is a professional tennis player who represents Japan in competition. Born in Osaka to a Haitian father and a Japanese mother, she has lived in the United States from an early age." There's no word limit here, and these are all relevant and verifiable facts that are dealt with in greater detail in the article body. Scolaire (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems even better. My point is that Osaka's situation is too complicated to simplify to our usual opening sentence: "X is a Fooian y." — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 19:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also prefer something like this. I suggested something similar above too. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that saying "Osaka is a Japanese and American professional tennis player who represents Japan" is accurate. I just don't like how saying she is a "Japanese player who represents Japan" sounds, even with American in the middle of that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree with this. She is Japanese, she is American, she is a Japanese professional tennis player, but she is not an American professional tennis player. She has never played for the United States. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; that's also why I don't like this solution so much. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem is that would this mean we'll have to change articles like Belinda Bencic? Her parents were born in Slovakia. They moved to Switzerland and Belinda was born in Switzerland. Belinda plays for Switzerland but also has citizenship in Slovakia. Are we going to change it to Belinda Bencic is a Slovak-Swiss tennis player and add info about her parents in the lead? Heck she reached world No. 7 (same as Osaka) so she is no slouch. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think so --- because she wasn't a long-term resident of Slovakia. Rebeka Masarova on the other hand, might deserve a more complicated explanation in the lead... (as the opposite case: someone who represents a country where they weren't born and have hardly lived in). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Osaka hasn't spent much time in Japan, and none in Haiti, yet those are potential additions to the lead. I'm thinking that whatever way this turns out it could very well open up a can of worms to many other players whose parents are not mentioned in the lead or who have multiple citizenships. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why "a can of worms"? Why should all Wikipedia biography articles not have a properly-written lead that includes salient facts on their lives? Why do all tennis player articles have to have a lead consisting of "Joe Bloggs is an x-ish professional tennis player. He won such-and-such an ATP tournament. On 7 July 2014 he reached a career high of no. 11 in the world rankings"? Why do you think the whole Wikipedia project is threatened when this standard-format lead is changed in one article to refer to something the whole tennis world is talking about? Have you even tried googling "naomi osaka haitian"? If you were to get similar numbers or quality of results for "belinda bencic slovakian" or "rebeka masarova slovakian", then of course the leads of their articles should be edited accordingly. But you don't. Naomi Osaka is a special case – as shown by multiple stories from reliable news media, this talk page, and the famous social media campaign, not to mention the woman herself – and there is no justification for shoe-horning her into the off-the-rack lead that you think all tennis player articles should follow. Scolaire (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It becomes even more confusing when the country of birth ceases to exist. What would we do for instance with Martina Hingis? Should we introduce her as a Czechoslovak-Slovak-Swiss tennis player? Or what about Byron Black. Do we put him as a Rhodesian-Zimbabwan tennis player? I'll reiterate that MOS:LEAD instructs to make it a summary of the most important facts presented in the article. Not everything you can think off. I'll maintain that here Haitianness is not one of the most important facts with regards to her only notable professional activity: playing tennis.Tvx1 16:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But you're just repeating the same things over and over without even looking at the responses! Her Haitian ethnicity is important. It's important to her and it's important to the media. What we should do with Martina Hingis and Byron Black is write good articles with good leads that say things that are relevant and verifiable, not use them for bizarre OSE purposes. Scolaire (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We do have to look at people case by case and not every tennis bio looks the same. But people are always pointing at precedent and this will be one of those that a finger aims at. A couple of things here. This is very current news so more has been made of her ethnicity then might be done in say, a year or so. Your interpretation of what's important in a tennis bio is not everyones. Yes we summarize in the lead the most important things about a player. By the way it is nice to see someone using the correct term "lead" at wikipedia. But we don't look at each subsection and take the most important things from each subsection. Otherwise we might have her racket string tension in the lead. 99% of this article is not about her parents heritage, and I'm not sure it's important enough for the lead.
She is notable for tennis, for things shes done on the court, and the focus of the lead should be on that notability. It should summarize her name, the country she represents or lives in, and her biggest accomplishments on the court. Most players don't have all that much as far as family heritage in the bios, but when they do we try and expand the personal section or early life section to accommodate that aspect of their lives. That was done for Naomi Osaka. A passerby might think, well she was born in Japan and plays for Japan, what's the big deal, that's like most players. They don't realize she's lived most of her entire life in the US or is a US citizen, yet still plays for Japan. Because of that her personal section was expanded. It might even warrant mentioning her US citizenship in the lead. That's why we are all here. But talking about her ethnic background and her parentage in the lead seems far and away trivial to me in that section. It is not one of the most important facts represented in the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I have been trying to point out. It's important enough to mention somewhere in this article, bit it's not one of the most important facts represented in the article.Tvx1 20:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A passerby might think, well she was born in Japan and plays for Japan, what's the big deal, that's like most players. They don't realize she's lived most of her entire life in the US or is a US citizen, yet still plays for Japan. It's the passerby that the lead is aimed at. WP:LEAD says "The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes. The lead is the first thing most people will read on arriving at an article." Most people will see the image, or will have seen a photo elsewhere, and say, "She's mixed race, how come it just says Japanese?" You're saying to those people, "you'll have to read the article if you want to know that, we're not going to spoon-feed you." That's against WP:LEAD. I really don't understand the determination to keep this short sentence out of the lead. I can't see how it unbalances the lead or harms the article. Bear in mind that before I edited the lead it didn't give an overview of her tennis career, it only said that she had won the 2018 US Open. Considering that, the "her tennis career is the only important thing" argument rings a bit hollow. Scolaire (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again no, the lead is not for the passerby it's for summarizing the most important aspects of notable tennis player Naomi Osaka. The average passerby may also not realize that player was injured and changed to a special brand of racket to compensate, yet that would not be included in the lead. I'm not saying you don't make good and interesting points, but you are saying them as if they are fact or ironclad, and they are not. They are your opinion just as others are my opinion of what's the most important things to include in the lead. What you added was pretty good, it certainly needed more info. But not every single thing you added was good. I actually kinda like the way it sits right now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would unbalance the lead because it would put undue emphasis on things which are not the most important facts presented in the article. There is no wikipedia policy forcing us to cram every sort of national identity in the lead of articles on people.Tvx1 12:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again the two of you are telling me what is important and what is not. How about you list the things in the article in order of importance? The section on her ethnicity/nationality has 330 words, the section dealing with her win over Stosur has 76 words, the sentences (not even a full paragraph) about her first WTA final has 77 words, the paragraph about winning the US Open has 72. So the small piece of text that was removed from my edit to the lead summarised article content that was far greater than everything else in the lead put together. Yet Fyunck(click) tells me that adding the last three to the lead was good, but adding the first is not good because it's "not important". This talk page is at 150,000 bytes – up from 640 bytes at the beginning of the year – and virtually all of it concerns her ethnicity/nationality. How can you say that it's not important? Tvx1 says, There is no Wikipedia policy forcing us to cram every sort of national identity in the lead of articles on people. Nobody has said anything about cramming anything into anything. Can you point me to the policy that says that a substantial section of the article should not be properly and succinctly summarised in the lead if two of the article's owners decree that it's "not important"? Scolaire (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where did any of us claim it's not important?? I literally wrote that it's important, but not one of the most important facts. Her Japaneseness is one of the most important facts, her Americanness is a maybe, her Haitianness is not. And there are much more that 72 words on her US Open campaign.Tvx1 23:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are 72 words on the US Open final. Her wins over Siegemund, Glushko etc. are not in the lead – only the final. Even adding them only gives another 100 words, as against 330 for her ethnicity/nationality. Now, you've just "literally" written that "it's" important, and followed that with "her Haitainness is not." Can I ask you again, what algorithm are you using to calculate the "importantness" of her "Japaneseness", her "Americanness" and her "Haitianness"? And please don't say reliable sources; I've cited plenty of sources (Washington Post, Boston Globe. Guardian and six others, as well as two interviews and a tweet from Osaka herself) that demonstrate the importance of the fact that her father is Haitian and she lives in the US, both to the media and to herself. And what exactly are the most important facts, after her 2014 win over Stosur, her first WTA final, winning Indian Wells, winning the US Open, and her no. 7 ranking? The lead is short enough that more important facts can be added, so what are your sixth, seventh and eighth most important facts? Her racket strings? Simply parrotting "it's not important" (sorry, "it's not the most important") is not a sound, policy-based argument. Scolaire (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really impeccable of reading, because this getting very tiresome. This is what I wrote. Her Japaneseness is one of the most important facts, her Americanness is a maybe, her Haitianness is not. No where does that state It's important, her Haitianness is not. Please do not accuse me of having written things I have not. I have explained that her Haitianness is not one of the most important facts presented in the article and I stand by it. The most important facts are who she is, what her legal nationalities are, what here notable activity is, what her highest ranking is and what her major achievements were. Her Haitianness belongs in the personal life/background section. In fact that's why we have such a section in the first place. To provide background to her identity. The sentence in the lead on her US Open win is not just a summary of the final, even though it's mentioned, but of her whole US Open campaign. You don't win a tournament by winning the final alone. In this case she won 7 matches to lift the trophy. It demonstrates just how rash the lead is supposed to be. It merely mentions she won the tournament.Tvx1 12:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, this is getting tiresome. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fyunck(click) "She has never played for the United States" just a side note that's a bit off. Seems obvious she was playing USTA tennis before age 15 joining the JTA. e.g. 2009 USTA 14’s Team Florida Challenge]. I don't think that matters for the lead of what she currently is, though if more exists about this then it might be a good start to her early career. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting photo. She did go to school in the USA so she did play in Naples, Florida. However, to play as a junior or a pro the ITF gets involved and she did not play for the USA as a junior per the ITF. She did not play as a pro for the USA per the ITF. She did not play as a a pro for the USA per the WTA. But it looks like when you play for your high school team in Naples Florida, the USTA will thank you with a Team Florida t-shirt and a photo. I'm not sure it qualifies as more than that though. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Correction

@Dlohcierekim: Please, fix caption of image: Osaka at the 2018 French Open, correctly: Osaka at the 2018 Nottingham Open. Cheers --Kacir 18:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC) / --Kacir 18:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kacir: was that not one of the dispted matters? why would one select his image?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This image is already in the article, but the caption is wrong and needs fixing. Iffy★Chat -- 18:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well let's get a consensus that that would be the correct caption and take it from there.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is need to get a consensus to remove obvious mistake? It seems to me misleading information will be next week in the article. --Kacir 19:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Per the source, that photo was taken at the "2018 Nottingham Open qualifiers." That change should be made since it is an obvious error. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Check my work. Ping me if broke it.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, just only note: Osaka as 3rd seeded didn't play qualifying. The photo was taken the day before starting singles draw during practice (she had vest).--Kacir 00:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was going by what the original photographer had on flickr. He had it in the category of qualifying. He was probably watching qualifying and taking shots and also took photos of some players practicing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Ricecenter has edited to restore his previous edit in its entirety, ignoring the problems I pointed out when reverting parts of it one item at a time, such as the fact that Facebook is not a reliable source, and the fact that whole sections, such as this, don't even make sense. He has tried to "discuss" his edits by means of a long edit summary, but he needs to make his case here on the talk page. For instance, some sources do state her residence as Boca Raton, but the majority of sources say Fort Lauderdale, so that would need to be thrashed out here. I'm not sure what he means by She registered the nationality with Japan in 2011 to the International Tennis Federation, but she is not registered with the Japan Tennis Association. The Japan Tennis Association was discovered in 2013 and has not registered until 2014, but Brook Larner in the New York Times seems to be saying that she was registered with the JTA at age 13, i.e. 2010. If you have reliable sources to the contrary you need to tell us what they are – not link to archive.org and Facebook – and what exactly they say; it's not enough to just cite a splodge of Japanese. Please address each one of your changes and explain why you think they are justified. Scolaire (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am poor at English, so I use google translation, so I am worried about the lack of detailed nuances.I am Japanese and usually editing Japanese version. The English version complements the missing places to reference. I do not know abroad about editing but I think that Japan is more detailed than others.
Regarding her residence, in the interview of a Japanese magazine in October 2018, she is practicing at the Robert Tennis Academy of Boca Raton and living there. And The official profile of the WTA is also Boca Raton. It has already been edited as follows.By May 2018, Osaka had been training at Evert Tennis Academy in Boca Raton, Florida. The majority of information sources are called Fort Lauderdale, but for example if she lived by a year ago it would be. But now if her move and Boca Raton, you should write now.
Regarding registration with the Japan Tennis Association, As I edited, she chose to be born country to the ITF, but she did not register with the Japan Tennis Association and she never went to the match, so the Japan tennis association did not know. It is said that "Brook Larner in the New York Times seems to be saying that she was registered with the JTA at age 13". But In the Sports Hochi of 2014, 日本協会には登録していないが、国際連盟には「日本選手」として登録 is. In the Nikkan Sports of 2016,大坂なおみ日米争奪戦　両方の国籍、日本に秘策も "13年9月に有明で開かれた東レ・パンパシフィックで、予選に出場していた大坂にJTAが手を差し伸べた。今大会で大坂に同行する吉川真司代表コーチが「すごい才能」と報告" is. Why do reporters of the New York Times in 2018 know the relationship between Japan Tennis Association and Naomi Osaka in 2011 from the Japanese sports newspaper in 2014 and 2016? Did you cover the Japan Tennis Association or Naosumi Osaka? Is not it a guess from the fact that Prior to participating in ITF match in Japan at the age of 14 in 2011?
this makes no sense. It is said, If she is an ordinary player, I agree that she does not need to, but in her case not only the tennis skill but also to describe the background of choosing Japan national team, not the USA national team is necessary.--Ricecenter (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ricecenter, the problem is that because of your poor English, we cannot understand what you, or your sources, are saying. When I put the Nikkan Sports article through Google Translate, I get At the Toray Pan Pacific held in Ariake in September 2001 [not 2013], the Japan Tennis Association (JTA) handed out Osaka who had been in qualifying. Shinji Yoshikawa...reports that he is 'great talent.' I have no idea what "handed out" means. In your edit, you have said So Shinji Yoshikawa Japan Fed Cup team coach was discovered and reported 'Great talent' to the Japan Tennis Association. This makes no sense. "Shinji Yoshikawa was discovered" has nothing to do with Naomi Osaka! The Google translation of the July 2014 Hochi article does say Although not registered in the Japan Association, the International League registered as 'Japanese athletes'. I don't know what the "International League" is, but I'm guessing that it is the International Tennis Federation. Can you be registered as Japanese with the ITF if you are not registered with the JTA? The WTA in July 2014 had her as "Osaka, Naomi, Japan". Can you register with the WTA as Japanese if you are not registered with the JTA? Maybe Fyunck(click) or some other tennis expert can answer that for us, but at the moment a machine translation of an archived copy of one article is not enough to state this as fact. If you could find out the date that she did become registered with the JTA, that would be helpful.
Reliable sources up to September 2018 (e.g. this one) continued to say that she lived in Fort Lauderdale but trained in Boca Raton, but this article (English translation) is very persuasive, with a photo of the house, and talking about it being 5 minutes away from the Evert Tennis Academy and 30 minutes away from her previous home. That can be changed in the article. Scolaire (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure of all the intricacies in registration. They MUST register with the ITF where they give them the proper way to spell their names in English, their age, and country they represent. A country must say you represent them. I can't just say I represent Antarctica without Antarctica agreeing that I represent them. How that detail gets worked out with the ITF I don't know but without representation you can't play professional or junior tennis. Afterwards the ITF shares that info with the WTA and Fed Cup. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for her residence acknowledging Boca Raton.However, Regarding registration is disappointing.I will answer because you have questions about ITF registration.IPIN is required to register ITF. Family Name:Gender:Nation:Date of Birth:submit. She has no Junior achievement so enter Request an IPIN. Later on in various ways, It is completed with Payment. Players chose nation as Japan, but the tennis association will not be registered. To register with the Japan Tennis Association, you can not do it automatically even if you register with ITF. Players will Create account from Registration and Qualification. The rest is almost the same as ITF. But her and her father can not read Japanese. Her mother can read Japanese, but she does not know tennis. Registration costs money. She does not play the JTA sponsored game, so I do not think she is registering without need. I think that 2014 Hochi is correct, the New York Times mistook Nation and tennis association. She has not registered until 2017 Fed Cup national team.
I am supplementing because Nikkan Sports has not translated well. I will supplement Japanese first. "手を差し伸べた "is difficult, so replace it with" 援助を提案した ". (20)13年9月に有明コロシアムで開かれた東レ・パンパシフィックオープン予選に出場していた大坂(なおみ)にJTAが(援助を提案した)。今大会で(2016年全豪オープン)で大坂(なおみ)に同行する吉川真司(日本フェドカップ)代表コーチが(大坂なおみを)「すごい才能」と(JTAに)報告。I will change it so that I can read it.　"吉川真司代表コーチは2016年全豪オープンで大坂なおみに同行をしました。吉川真司は2013年9月に有明で開かれた東レ・パンパシフィックオープン予選に出場していた大坂なおみはすごい才能があるとJTAに報告した。JTAは大坂なおみに援助を提案した。"
Next, I will change the Japanese to English."13年9月に(September 2013),有明(Ariake Coliseum),で開かれた(Held),東レ・パンパシフィックで、予選(Toray Pan Pacific Open Qualifying)に出場していた(Participation)大坂に(Naomi Osaka)JTAが(JTA)手を差し伸べた(Propose support)。今大会で(2016 Australian Open)大坂(Naomi Osaka)に同行する(Accompany)吉川真司(Shinji Yoshikawa)代表コーチ(Japan Fed Cup team coach)が「すごい才能」(Awesome talent)と報告(report)" → 2016 Australian Open Naomi Accompany Shinji Yoshikawa Japan Fed Cup team coach. September 2013 Ariake Coliseum Held Toray Pan Pacific Open Qualifying participation Naomi Awesome talent Shinji Yoshikawa report JTA. JTA Naomi Propose support.
Can you read the meaning? Shinji Yoshikawa Japan Fed Cup team coach saw her play for the first time at Toray Open held in Japan. He reported her talent to JTA. She did not play in Japan and did not register, so she did not recognize her existence until 2013. Then the JTA invited her. So this place is necessary for Japan national team.--Ricecenter (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's one thing I don't understand. Why do you talk about the 2016 Australian Open when the article says 2013 Pan Pacific Open qualifying? Otherwise, I think I understand. She was registered with the ITF as Japanese, which she could be as she was born in Japan. She did not need to be registered with the JTA if she did not want to play on the national team. She was "offered assistance" by the JTA when she competed in Tokyo in 2013 (although it does not say what kind of assistance). Shinji Yoshikawa, the Fed Cup team coach, reported after that tournament that she had "awesome talent". She then joined the JTA, and competed for Japan for the first time in the 2017 Fed Cup. Is that correct? Scolaire (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is because this is an article of the Australian Open 2016. There are no records or articles she registered with JTA. So I think that it was not until 2017. Even if she previously registered, As written in 2016 Nikkan Sports like this. 日本には秘策もある。２月の女子国別対抗戦フェド杯アジアオセアニアゾーンで１位になれば、４月に世界グループ２部への入れ替え戦がある。その代表に大坂を選出することも視野に入れる。フェド杯は代表になると、次に別の国の代表になるのは困難。大坂は今大会、最も活躍した日本女子で世界ランクも４番目。代表は４人のため、障害はない。米国はトップ１００に１１人が名を連ねる。１００位以下の大坂を代表に選ぶには、それなりの理由が必要となる, But until 2017 Fed Cup she was easy to change. So JTA wanted her to be a Japanese delegate soon.--Ricecenter (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi has always represented Japan as a professional. Even for her first ITF tournament in 2011, she was registered with the JTA. See here. It makes sense that she was already registered with the JTA a year earlier in 2010 because that's when her older sister Mari played her first ITF tournament (see here). I think Ricecenter's confusion is that she did not play Fed Cup until recently. However, you do not need to play Fed Cup to have a national affiliation. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But there can be a difference depending on a country's tennis rules. Yes, she was registered with the ITF as playing for Japan in 2011 as you have sourced it, but that doesn't mean she had to be registered with the JTA back then. I saw a bunch of sources when she was 16 (so 2014) that said the USTA wanted her to join them, but she told them they were too late and that she was joining the JTA. I think it very likely that 2014 was the year she joined the JTA, though they had been supporting her with coaching (not money) even earlier than that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever way we interpret it will be original research, so I'm going to stick to the fact that Shinji Yoshikawa saw her in action in 2013 and reported her talent to the JTA, and then jump ahead to her first appearance for Japan in 2017. If we ever do find a reliable source that gives the date of her registration, it can go in then. Scolaire (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In common rumors, She is troubled with activity funds, her first asked for USTA but refused. So then she was accepted as she asked JTA. I think From the Nikkan Sports of 2016, that it is just before 2013 Toray Pan Pacific Open. So JTA recognized her existence, JTA dispatched a national team coach and inspected. JTA accepted support request. Looking at her activity history, Her debut match is near Jamaica from Florida. She has been playing games in the USA since then. And she suddenly goes to Tokyo from Quebec City in 2013. And North American continues. From April 2014, Japanese games increase. So I think that there was a chance for her base to increase to Japan in the meantime. I think that the Nikkan Sports of 2016 proves the event.--Ricecenter (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, we can look at all the news stories etc. and guess what the situation was, but that is original research, so we cannot use it in the article. I have added the stuff about Shinji Yoshikawa seeing her and reporting to the JTA, and changed the paragraph that said her father registered her with the JTA at the start of her career. That is the best we can do for now. Thank you for your contributions, and for having the patience to explain the things we were not able to understand. Scolaire (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per this source, she had not joined the JTA by July 29, 2014. Perhaps there are more that can narrow it down. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Nikkan Sports of 2016 articles. However, registration was modified according to IPIN. Other changes are, There is a source of New York University, I edited it, However, probably FACEBOOK, who is considered to be him, It is City College of New York. Since there is a high possibility of error, I thought about deleting, I will use the source of college student in New York. Her first tennis club was not Harold Solomon Institute. Her first tennis club was the ISP Academy, Naomi Osaka 2013. Strings is part of the tennis racket and Roger Federer is also edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricecenter (talk • contribs) 05:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very clever! Engage in a long discussion about two important matters, and then dump the rest of your rubbish back in the article exactly the way it was. There are multiple sources for NYU and none for City College except a Facebook page with the name Leonard Francois, which could have been created by anybody. I have read that puntodebreak.com article and watched that YouTube video several times, and I cannot see or hear "ISP Academy". Can you quote the exact sentence in each, please? And strings are not necessary in an encyclopaedia article. The fact that there are strings in the Federer article doesn't mean there have to be strings here. The rest of your edit is trivia: "When she was a lickle girl she wrote 'I want to be like Serena'" and so on. You have been reverted twice. A number of us have taken the trouble to discuss your edits with you. Please don't continue to add the same badly-written, unencyclopaedic content back. It is disruptive. Scolaire (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand your idea. Where you think the problem is, It also removes places you think are good. First of all, please return to where you believe there is no problem. It is because there is no legitimate need to delete. Let's discuss it later.--Ricecenter (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have returned it to where I believe there is no problem – the article as it was, with the addition of the things we discussed and agreed. Each of your three edits has added a mass of content in different places. All of it is confusing, trivial, inaccurate or all three. The first time, I went through it line by line, kept what I thought was good, changed what I thought was wrong, improved the English, improved the formatting, added extra details and added extra citations. It took me over two hours to do it. I'm not going to do it again. You are not competent enough in English to make large changes to an article. If there are ten things that you want to add or change, state them here and number them 1 to 10. Let's start with (1) Her first tennis club was the ISP Academy. You say that that is stated in a puntodebreak.com article and a YouTube video. I asked you to quote the exact sentence in each, and you have not done so. Over to you. Scolaire (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Naomi Osaka 2013, I will transcribe Japanese subtitles. 4 seconds, ”なおみ” 15歳！注目の新人です！”.10 seconds, ”初めまして。テニス選手の大坂なおみ、15歳です”. 16 seconds, ”南フロリダ在住で今はISPアカデミーで”. 19 seconds, ”パトリックコーチのもと練習しています”. 22 seconds, ”大阪生まれで小さい時に米国に引っ越しました”. 26 seconds, ”テニスは3歳の時に始めました”. 30 seconds, ”テニスが好きな理由は”. 31 seconds, ”大会に出場して色々な選手と試合が出来るのと”. 34 seconds, ”特に強い選手と戦えるからです”. 2 minutes 6 seconds, ”自分の好きなショットは”. 2 minutes 7 seconds, ”フォアハンドとサーブです”. 2 minutes 9 seconds, ”何故なら好きな時にポイントを終わらせることが出来るからです”. The ISP Academy is probably 17 to 19 seconds.
Regarding equipment, I can not play tennis without Strings. I do not insist that editing is necessary, I have heard that it is necessary to delete it.
Regarding the university, Your saying is correct. So I edited New York University in the past. But, from her Twitter this video is herself. It is surely the channel of the mother's tamaki from this upload content and address. There is "New 'Selfish love' trailer: Bennchoumy" in the playlist of Liberty NY. Naomi sisters also appeared in this video. It can be said that the relevance between leonard.francois and Liberty NY is high. Such posts of this account is highly relevant to Naomi, Residence Pembroke Pines, Birthplace Port -au-Prince, Profile photo, On the timeline, In 1986, Tilden High School graduate "the early wave of foreigners coming to Sapporo around 1990, Tamaki met a handsome college student from New York" is no problem in time series. I can not think of another person because the matching rate is too high like this. Also, in general, if the City College of New York is ranked lower than New York University, the possibility of spoofing is low. But it is certain that there is no Identifying reliable sources. So I think that the correct way of writing is good in both universities like 'college student in New York'. Ricecenter (talk)
Wow, The person who wrote the subtitles has a good ear! Even knowing what the subtitles say, she seems to be saying "I train in South Florida with arse academy" ;-) The trouble is, we have that video from 2013, this, from 2014, which says "her coach is Harold Solomon; before working with Solomon, her father was her coach", and this, from 2016, which has Solomon before Tauma, and Tauma still coaching her at the 2016 Australian Open. We're trying to put a chronology on things when the chronology isn't clear. Also, is a tennis academy the same thing as a club? I suggest we edit the Early years section to say, "She trained with Patrick Tauma at the ISP Academy,[1] and with Harold Solomon at the Florida Tennis SBT Academy in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[2]" Then we don't have to worry about chronology. I would leave out the Proworld Academy altogether because it doesn't feature in the news coverage; there's only a mention of her name on the Academy website.
You have done a lot of great detective work on the Facebook/Twitter/YouTube sites but unfortunately, as you say, they don't count as reliable sources, and there is a source – which you added – that does say NYU. I would be willing to change it to "went to college in New York", and change the ref to the New York Times which, you might argue, is a more reliable source, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone changed it back to NYU.
If you do not insist that including strings is necessary, then let's not include strings, and there will be no problem. Scolaire (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Patrick Tauma (24 August 2013). Naomi Osaka Tennis Biography (YouTube video). Event occurs at 16 seconds. Retrieved 15 October 2018.
  2. ^ Watch: 16-year-old standout Naomi Osaka hits a massive forehand（Sports Illustrated July 31, 2014）
I think the tennis academy and the tennis club are the same. You seem to be confusing the time series, because the reporter who writes this article is mistaken. Originally she was first known for 2014, Harold coach was said to be her first coach. But since this video was discovered later, contradiction has arisen. She studied at Patrick Tauma at the ISP Academy in 2013. Later, she learned from Harold Solomon at SBT Academy in 2014. I think that is correct. Regarding ProWorld Tennis Academy, From this and this and this information I guess that she belonged to ProWorld Tennis Academy by Oct 28, 2015 to Oct 12, 2016.--Ricecenter (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not confusing anything. You are confusing writing an encyclopaedia article with playing detective. There is confusion in the sources. There is no reliable, secondary source that says exactly when she was coached by one person or another, or exactly when she attended one academy or another. Wikipedia does not allow original research. So, we can say that she belonged to ISP and SBT in her early years, but we can't say more than that. Of the three links you gave for ProWorld, two are to the academy's own site, and the other is to a brief fact sheet on the JTA site. If it doesn't even make it into a news story, then it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia article. Scolaire (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just made it so that I can understand official information and period of enrollment. I did not think to judge that you do not need to edit. If you need external information this and this and so on. (If you can not see it, please enter it directly and search. Perhaps it may be seen. "Naomi Osaka: The Tennis Star Who Was Overlooked by Everyone") --Ricecenter (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first link only says "with plenty of top talent coming across its courts including...Naomi Osaka". That doesn't tell us anything. The second one is subscription only. If you have a subscription, can you quote the sentence, please? Otherwise we can't use it. Scolaire (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely, when I tried Google again today I got the full article. I have added ProWorld to the section. Scolaire (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what you are having a problem with. If we can prove that she has a history belonging to the ProWorld Tennis Academy, we should be able to edit it. Cava’s academy, named the ProWorld Tennis Academy, Over the past five years it has blossomed, with plenty of top talent coming across its courts including Adrian Mannarino, Naomi Osaka From this information, I can see that she belonged to the ProWorld Tennis Academy during the past five years since March 22, 2017. I wrote this, As you step on the link you can only read halfway. Troublesome but please search Google with this phrase "Naomi Osaka: The Tennis Star Who Was Overlooked by Everyone". It says "They later played at Harold Solomon Tennis Academy and then the ProWorld Tennis Academy in Delray Beach." --Ricecenter (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. It seems that it has already been changed. There is no news to teach her Academy's period of enrollment, so it is OK. Since the content of the discussion is over, I will change the part that was said to be no problem. However, I could not translate this part ”Alden Terrace Primary school until the third grade and I want to be like her” well, Which do you say good or bad? --Ricecenter (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I have deleted the text because it was a copyright violation. I didn't want the whole thing, only the one sentence.
Please do not add anything back to the article. I didn't say it was no problem, I said everything I reverted was a problem. We shouldn't say she attended the school until third grade, just that she attended the school. It is the same as the tennis academies. "I want to be like her" is a trivial fact. It doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia article. The other things you added are the same. You do not have good enough English to edit the article, even if what you said was good. And the things that you keep trying to add back were not good. So please, just leave the article alone. Scolaire (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not good at English, so discussion is a problem, but editing is different. I have the right to edit, You and others have the right to modify, delete or discuss. This is an argument that you do after you delete my edits So I can not refute it if you do not have specific objections. You say that I am editing though you do not form consensus, that you have not refuted quickly. Please state all the objections before the discussion is over. Please explain to me specifically what is the problem with This edit. --Ricecenter (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I keep telling you what is wrong with your edits, and you keep acting as though you haven't read it. Then you say "there was no problem with these edits", and you put them back. For instance, I said, "strings are not necessary in an encyclopaedia article." You said, "I do not insist that editing is necessary, I have heard that it is necessary to delete it." I said, "If you do not insist that including strings is necessary, then let's not include strings, and there will be no problem." You did not reply. I thought the discussion was resolved. Then you put the strings back! I asked you eight days ago to make a list here on the talk page of everything you wanted to add or change. You only stated three things. I would have told you (again) my objection to the other things but you didn't list them. Then you say, "Since the content of the discussion is over, I will change the part that was said to be no problem." I had already said here, "the rest of your edit is trivia." There was never a part that was said to be no problem. If you can't understand English well enough to have a proper discussion, then you shouldn't be editing English Wikipedia. Why do you want to edit an article you can't read?
Everything in that edit is trivia. Everything. None of it belongs in an encyclopaedia article. The onus is on the person adding the content to get a consensus for the edit. You do not have a consensus to keep adding that content. Repeatedly adding the same content without consensus is edit-warring, so please stop adding it. Scolaire (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are also modifying and deleting edits other than me. That does not matter whether the editor is not good at English. You should respond appropriately if its editing is bad, and you have to admit it if editing is ok. So it does not matter if I am not good at English. I am not good at English, so I admit that it is difficult to argue. But if there is no discussion with you, my editing will not be a problem in particular. Even though I am better at English than I am, there are many useless editors. But they also have editorial rights.
About Strings, Apparently the Japanese translation seems to have been wrong. I read that you acknowledged it. For example, Looking at Sports equipment there is "but it is essential to complete the sport", including not only racket but also "Footwear". Even if you look at the Tennis equipment, it is mentioned about the Strings and it is written in more detail as a reference. Equipment and Strings are highly relevant, and it will be established only after two sets. Rackets without Strings can not be used as equipment. There is a lack of explanation in either case. I will accept the claim if you can play without Strings.
I finally understood the translation about other parts, so I will explain. There is 出身校(Alma mater) New York Alden Terrace小(elementary) - Florida Broward Virtual中(Middle school) - Florida Broward Virtual高(high school)卒(graduate), Please tell me why you should not write Middle school.
"Osaka starts tennis with the influence of his father who saw Venus and Serena Williams who won the 1999 French Open Women's Doubles" is writing the opportunity to start tennis. It is not only in tennis but also in many articles. But I am not good at English, I will welcome you if you can successfully connect with "Osaka practiced at Utsubo Tennis Center in Japan".
"Her agent, Daniel Balog of Octagon, says Osaka presents a unique opportunity to market the sport to crossover markets" This can prove that I was under the management of Daniel Balog of Octagon in 2016. at least, Even if I do not know from what time, I agree if it is the same editing as the tennis club. --Ricecenter (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When somebody disagrees with my edit of mine, I have to get consensus for it on the talk page. When I did this edit, and somebody reverted it, I did not try to put it back. If I did, that would have been edit-warring. I was able to put it back after a month, when there had been a long discussion, and 15 people had agreed with me, so I had consensus. When nobody has a problem with one of my edits, I don't have to get a consensus on the talk page. For you, it is exactly the same. It makes no difference that you can point to a website that says something. If somebody disagrees with adding it, you have to get a consensus on the talk page. Putting it back without consensus is edit-warring. Your edits have been reverted four times. There has been a long discussion here on the talk page. Nobody has agreed with your edits. I say that everything you want to add is trivia. What you must do is to gain a consensus that those things belong in the article. Otherwise you must stop. Scolaire (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understood your argument. But I can not agree with that. You say I do not agree with my editing, But you are opposed to only one person. Actually, the boundary is ambiguous whether it is trivia or not, there are 100 kinds of 100 editors. The strings were not changed from April 9, 2018 to October 10 2018. During that period, many editors acknowledged it. As soon as I returned, You can not tell me that your editing is more authorized than I am. I will return so. Middle school changed from April 5, 2018 to September 5 2018. However, it was anonymous user who changed it, Currently that person does not have edit right, so it can not be said that there are many people opposite. Other than that, These were not mentioned at the beginning when you repaired my edits. I predict your main problem was Boca Raton, University, Tennis Association, Tennis Club. If I do not have the current problem in this editing, I do not think you strongly oppose it. We solved the main problem, I think that the remainder is not a big problem either way. These edits are not judged by many people as you immediately delete the edits. There are only us participating in this discussion, I will propose that because the end of the discussion can not be seen as it is. let's leave it to editing, even if someone else does not participate. It should fit in shape after a long time. So at the end I will edit these. You can change what I approved, but You will not delete it. I will not change if people other than you correct or delete. Then let's make it to an end. Actually I can not do more editing I want to do, I am tired. I think that it is the same with you. So let's finish with this. --Ricecenter (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you edit to put back any of those things, I will revert you immediately. You do not have consensus to put them back. There was a discussion and nobody agreed with you. What you must do is to gain a consensus that those things belong in the article. Otherwise you must stop. Scolaire (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have done so far in accordance with your discussion. But now you are pressing the recognition that you are right and I am wrong. Currently this page is a long discussion state. People other than us are neutral, they do not agree with your editing. Perhaps they will have not changed anything on the it page even if I am discussing the it situation with your edit back. Please prove that your edits are getting consensus. --Ricecenter (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. The onus is on the person making the changes to get a consensus for them. You are right about the strings. They were there for months. I will add them back. The word "middle" is already in the article. If you edit to put anything else back, I will revert you. Scolaire (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I did not notice that Middle school had already been edited. Also thank you for admitting that no one agrees with the string. My question is, do you consider "Sarebenka started playing tennis by chance" as trivia too? Also the contract with her IMG is good and the Octagon is the reason for trivia? However, since there is no agreement or no opposition in other places, it is difficult to conclude the discussion. Please give me someone 's favor or disagree. --Ricecenter (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sportsfan77777(talk) for opinion the opportunity to start tennis . The rest is only management. --Ricecenter (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you Sportsfan77777 for your excellent edits. Good luck with the Good Article nomination. Scolaire (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Naomi Osaka/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 20:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shall review this article. MWright96 (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MWright96! I just updated the article to reflect this year's results, so it should be ready to look at. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Lede

Early life and background

2011–15: WTA Tour match win at age 16, top 150

2016: First WTA final, Newcomer of the Year, top 50

2017: Slight regression, two top 10 victories

2018: US Open champion, Indian Wells title, world No. 4

Hopman Cup

Playing style

Coaches

  • "Following her tough loss at the 2016 US Open," - heavy to avoid editoralizing
    • Changed to "Following her loss at the 2016 US Open where she could not convert a 5–1 lead in the third set"
  • Wikilink Japan Tennis Association

Endorsements

Personal life

References

Good work on the article. There is nothing that is too major to be addressed. MWright96 (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MWright96, thanks for the review! I've addressed all of the comments above, and pretty much agreed with everything. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan77777: Okay then. Am now able to promote the article to GA class. MWright96 (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First Asian #1?

This appears to be factually false, and obviously so. Maria Sharapova has been rated #1 before, and she's not exactly obscure. Though she is currently a US resident from what I can tell, she was born in Asia. What's going on with this crazy claim in the second paragraph?

"becoming the first Asian player to be the world's number one"

Has Naomi Osaka ever even lived in Asia? I suppose that one is open to interpretation - every Japanese person I've ever asked about it, or been told, has said Japan is not part of Asia. Most non-Japanese seem to think Japan IS part of Asia. But Maria Sharapova being rated #1, and being born in Asia, those are facts not up for debate. These are not opinions, these are facts, and I'm not sure anybody could even try to debate them. Is there evidence that Maria Sharapova was not born in Nyagan? Surely this false claim about Naomi Osaka has to be edited or removed. I'm not sure how something so brazenly and obviously false can remain like this. Smyslov (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, you need to dial back the righteous indignation. Then, you need to have a read of Wikipedia:Verifiability not truth. Every news outlet reporting Osaka's achievement – bar none – referred to her as the first ever Asian world No. 1. I don't recall anybody saying that about Sharapova when she reached the top spot, and I can't find any mention in a Google search either. On Wikipedia we say what can be verified by reference to reliable sources.
I think the point about Osaka is that she represents Japan (and trust me, Japan is in Asia). If she had opted to represent the US, as Sharapova did, she would just be the latest American world No. 1. Scolaire (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I notice that the Sharapova article calls her "the first Russian woman to hold the world No. 1 ranking", which dilutes my previous point a bit. But the fact that Naomi Osaka's name is followed by a Japanese flag is definitely a significant factor (and my point about verifiability not truth still holds). Scolaire (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You also have to remember that the term asian as used in the "first asian No. 1", refers to race not geography. That would usually include the Far East, Southeast Asia, and the Indian subcontinent. It would exclude North Asia (which include Russia), Central Asia, and Western Asia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have personally found at least two factually false statements on Wikipedia over the years, so it very much can have false information on it while citing "reliable sources" (for example, the article on Beethoven claimed he wrote the first symphony containing trombones; completely untrue, despite the fact that it had references to "reliable" sources. It was eventually corrected, and I'm thinking eventually this will be as well). I ask the following questions: (1) Was Maria Sharapova rated #1 by the WTA prior to Naomi Osaka being rated #1? (2) Was Maria Sharapova born in Nyagan, Russia? (3) Is Nyagan, Russia located on the area of land known as "Asia"? As far as I can tell, the answer to all three of these questions is "yes", and sources seem to be available regarding this information. Your condescending and bizarre opening sentence is irrelevant: this seems to be a matter of chronology and geography. Smyslov (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Smyslov: It is you who are being condescending and pompous. You have a serious attitude problem; You could have simply said "I believe that it is inaccurate to state that Osaka is the first Asian player to be the world's number one", instead of Surely this false claim about Naomi Osaka has to be edited or removed. I'm not sure how something so brazenly and obviously false can remain like this. We all find factually false information on Wikipedia from time to time, but we don't all declare them anathema as if we were the emperor of the project, or the undisputed source of all knowledge. I had a look at your contribution at Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven), and the error was corrected not by this ridiculous, bombastic edit, but by this edit where an altruistic fellow-editor went to the trouble of finding a source which you were too lazy to look for.
Now, this is neither a matter of chronology or geography; it is a matter of Wikipedia policy. I don't doubt that you can find reliable sources that say that Sharapova was born in Nyagan, that Nyagan is located on the continent of Asia, and that Sharapova was ranked world No. 1 in 2005. But – and this is the catch – if you read WP:SYNTH, you will see that you cannot "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In other words, you have to find reliable, published sources that not only say all of those things, but also says that because of that, she was the first world No. 1 from Asia. And when I say sources, I mean a lot of sources, because Wikipedia policy requires due weight, i.e. a viewpoint has to be represented in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources, and there are many, many published, reliable sources that say Osaka is the first. If you didn't actually read Verifiability not truth, please take the trouble to read it now. If you did, please take the trouble to read it again. You need to understand that just knowing better than everybody else is not enough. Scolaire (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing citizenship

Now that Osaka is approaching her 22nd birthday there is a growing discussion, at least in the Asian media, of the Japanese law that requires dual citizens to choose a single country at age 22. This edit by GreenRunner0 (which was reverted by Sportsfan77777) cited this article in the Japan Times, which is certainly a reliable source for the fact that she could have to choose. The article heavily implies that almost no-one chooses and the law turns a blind eye, but this video by Asian Boss tells a different story. In a street survey with a very small sample we hear (at 3m 24s) that one young lady has a cousin that had to make the choice between Japanese and American, and another chose Japanese over Canadian citizenship but was distressed about losing part of her identity. So it is a real thing, and it has a real impact; in Osaka's case, it impacts many of her fans as well as herself and her family. As October 16 approaches, this story is going to get bigger. But we have reliable sources now, so there is no reason not to include the fact in the article now. Scolaire (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it probably should be included. Not that she must make a choice, but the fact that she "may" have a choice to make. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Japan Times article says that some people choose to give up one of their citizenships because they are aware of the law, but the article also says that none of these people were forced to do so. It's not correct to say that the Japanese government will force her to choose because they have never done that. Beyond that, it's also not correct to say that the Japanese government may force her to choose because that is predicting the future (see WP:CRYSTALBALL). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added a long footnote with a more detailed (and more accurate) explanation to account for these nuances. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How did Naomi Osaka acquire U.S. citizenship?

My understanding is that her father, who is Haitian-born, became a naturalized U.S. citizen before she was born, and that she acquired U.S. citizenship at birth through her father. But this is not mentioned in the article, and I'm unable to find reliable sources for this. I think this is relevant information that should be added to the article if it can be sourced properly. laug (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that a few people tried and failed to find a source for this. I know I did. Google is your friend, but it's not omniscient. Scolaire (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was hard to find. She was automatically a naturalized US citizen by derivation of her naturalized father. See this article. Per naturalization laws A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a U.S. citizen when
  • 1) The child has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen by birth or through naturalization checkY
  • 2) The child is under 18 years of age checkY
  • 3) The child is a lawful permanent resident checkY
  • 4) The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent checkY
So it was automatic that Osaka became a US citizen... nothing had to be done and it's why she has dual citizenship. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck(click): I don't know what V-Dare is – and I think I'd rather not know – but it is emphatically not a reliable source. Did you notice the word BLOG highlighted in bright orange at the top of the page? Did you notice the copyright New York Times picture/heading reproduced without permission? All credit to you for trying, but if is all that anybody can find on the web then the fact of her father's citizenship still isn't verifiable. Scolaire (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about that source, but it's what first said it was automatic citizenship. The automatic citizenship I did not know about and it's why I lookd it up at the gov't website. Her father has been described as naturalized in several articles such as here at the African Globe. I didn't say it should necessarily go in the article, but assuming the sources are correct that her father naturalized and assuming the the US Gov article on citizenship is correct during the time he has been a citizen, then that's why she has American Citizenship. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not sure the African Globe would be a news outlet with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I'd like to see the fact stated in a high-quality source. Ideally, also, I'd like to see some details, e.g. what year (or even decade) did he acquire citizenship? why did he apply?, etc. I'm quite ready to believe that he was already a citizen when Naomi was born, but we can't put it in with what we've got, and we shouldn't be talking about it on the talk page if we're not intending to put it in. Scolaire (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content from the lead

Sennen goroshi has removed the same sentence from the lead four times. The sentence is, "Osaka is known for her multi-ethnic background and her shy, candid personality." His/her most recent edit summary is my consensus is based on MOS:LEAD. But MOS:LEAD says that the lead should serve as "a summary of its most important contents". The Personal life section talks about only two things: her multi-ethnic background and her shy, candid personality. Therefore it belongs in the lead. It was in the lead when the article was given Good Article status, and it shouldn't be removed just because one user believes it is somehow disrespectful to use the word "shy" in the lead of a biographical article. Scolaire (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with it being in the lead, but I'd kinda like to hear from editor Goroshi to see what their legitimate issues are with the sentence. To my understanding and the sources I see, her multi-ethnicity is a huge part of her notability. Her shyness and candidness are important but notable to a lesser degree, and these particular personality traits may disappear with time and comfort with the press. If/when they do the lead may have to be adjusted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Her ethnic background is mentioned with specific details in the second paragraph of the lede, I see no benefit in mentioning it again in the lede. The fact that she is shy is hardly encyclopedic and certainly not relevant for the lede - the lede should summarize the most important aspects of the article, her shyness is not that important. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe you haven't read that much about her or watched many of her interviews. She is candid (and often very funny), and completely different from the prepared-speech type delivery that most professional tennis players have; and she frequently stresses – as do her team members and tennis reporters – how shy she is. It is a defining characteristic and, as such, it belongs in the lead. The lead of the Nick Kyrgios article has a sentence about his negative qualities. You can't just say "'unsportsmanlike' is suitable for the lead but 'shy' isn't." Scolaire (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"It is a defining characteristic" - no. She is defined by her performance as a tennis player, not by some tabloid level crap on how she is shy. The character of Nick Kyrgios is relevant for the lede of his article because he has received widespread criticism, and the lede deals with this criticism, not his attitude. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lead doesn't necessarily deal with shyness or criticism. It deals with the most important aspects of a person. Osaka's notability has been built for the last two years by her tennis playing and her multi-cultural background. Those are HUGE factors in why she is notable. For a tennis player, she is "unusually" shy and candid. Whether those last two items are enough for the lead is up for debate. If someone asks me who Naomi Osaka is, I would probably tell them she is a Japanese-American (with Haitian ancestry), two-time major tennis champion, who is refreshingly shy in her interviews. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that her tennis performances and background are important. Both are mentioned way before the contentious content. There is certainly no need to cover her background twice in the lede - that seems as if it was added by someone who didn't actually bother to read and lede and just added a random statement. Her shyness isn't why she is famous - that's just a very minor detail in someone's life who has very major details. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you have said that three times now (five times if you count edit summaries). Repeating it endlessly isn't going to alter the fact that we disagree, i.e. you have no consensus to remove the content. Scolaire (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus isn't a vote, and perhaps you need to modify your tone a little. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for my tone. The fact remains that you have come to the talk page to find a consensus for your edit and failed. It has nothing to do with voting. It's simply that nobody has supported your edit. Doing the same edit while you are failing to get a consensus for it on the talk page is edit-warring. Please don't do it again. Scolaire (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The content was added by Sportsfan77777 while preparing this article for Good Article status. I wonder whether he would have any comment. Scolaire (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't come to this talk page to gain consensus, the consensus already exists due to wikipedia policies. I came here because you were whining here and I thought it polite to respond. MOS and undue weight trump any minor voting you might indulge in on this talk page. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naomi_Osaka&oldid=902104721"