Talk:Hiroshi Motoyama

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Hey everyone. This is my first article on wikipedia. Hooray!!!

Let me know what I screwed up and what I can do better. I look forward to your feedback.

Godfrey1777 (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, looks like there's a little too much unoriginal material here, regardless of citation. I'll get in touch with CIHS and I'm sure I can get their permission. Godfrey1777 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Alright, as per the Japanese, his name is Motoyama and seldom is attached Hiroshi. So, if one were to type in "motoyama" into wikipedia, a page on a region of Japan by the same name comes up. I've been trying to find a way to create a disambiguation page, but I can't seem to do so. Can I get some help with this? Godfrey1777 (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. See, at the top of Motoyama, it has the text {{dablink|For the town in [[Kochi Prefecture]], see [[Motoyama, Kochi]].}}? This is the hatnote that appears at the top of the page. You have two options here. You can add this page to it by replacing the note with {{dablink|For the town in [[Kochi Prefecture]], see [[Motoyama, Kochi]]. For the person, see [[Hiroshi Motoyama]].}}, or something similar. Another option is to create an actual disambiguation page. You would replace the "hatnote" with {{otheruses}}, then create the disambiguation at Motoyama (disambiguation). A great guide on how to create disambiguation pages is available at WP:DAB. Thanks! The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 21:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took down the warning about un-original content. I've email CIHS and will be reworking this in its entirity when I get some free time. Godfrey1777 (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome. Please note that there's a specific process about handling permissions, it is described at WP:PERMISSION. That process is the only one we will recognize in order to clear copyrighted material for publication. In the meantime, we apply a precautionary principle on copyright matters and cannot leave the copied material up on display.

I have therefore replaced the copied parts with a generic boilerplate template, that one will be removed as soon as permission has been recieved.

Of course, you are free to write new content in your own words, there is a temporary subpage linked on the template that will allow you do just that.

If you do, please be aware of a phenomenon called close paraphrasing, which happens when one copy / pastes material and then tries to rewrite it. The end result very often appears to the writer as sufficiently distinct from the original that it passes muster, yet for the independent reviewer, the source text remains visible and clear as day - and such would still constitute a copyright violation. It is better, in my experience, to synthesize elements you gather from several independent sources into a prose entirely of your own, acting as if the copy / paste function would never have been invented.

If you need any help, you can create a new section on your talk page and add {{helpme}} followed by your request below it, someone will be along shortly to assist you. Alternatively, you may also leave me a message on my talk page. Best regards, MLauba (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A simple rewrite is the easiest way around copyright issues. Blanking everything except lists of publications is a sure way to get the whole article deleted for lack of content. Hairhorn (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Original Research

As currently written, the Theory and Method section appears as entirely unpublished description unsupported by any secondary sources. Unless proper reliable sources are provided, the section needs to be removed as a violation of No Original Research policy. This is, of course, in addition to the primary problem with this WP:BLP -- in that it lacks any independent references. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What sources do I need to cite? I'm not aware of any secondary sources on this author that get into his philosophy. Are you saying that I need independent, references and that primary sources cannot be used? If that's the case, please delete this entire entry as soon as possible as no one will be writing about him until he dies. I thought that I could use wp as a means to get other people aware of this author, but I guess I don't have the means to do so. Sounds like I need to go publish some articles.

Godfrey1777 (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to get this straight, primary sources do not count as sources? Godfrey1777 (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources only can be used in limited circumstances. (See WP:PRIMARY) In general, secondary and tertiary sources are necessary for all encyclopedic articles. In other words, we only summarize what other scholars, experts, journalists, etc. have published about a subject. This is policy, and, along with verifiability and neutral point-of-view, it is a core principle of Wikipedia. The page at WP:OR will provide more details. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the merit in that. Sadly, no such secondary sources exist... yet. When they do, I'll come back to the page. Godfrey1777 (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]