Jump to content

Talk:Nobuhiro Watsuki

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 14.3.115.230 (talk) at 04:11, 11 February 2019 (→‎Request for comments about 2017 charges). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Better source needed for 2017 arrest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move 2017 arrest info to "Personal Life"

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

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

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

Edit war

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

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

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

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

Request for comments about 2017 charges

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

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

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

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

  • Definitely no need to separate the info.
  • As already mentioned, he was NOT arrested. It was "書類送検", which is different from arrest.
  • In the Japanese version of this article, only a few sentences refer to the incident, and the sentences are in the career section.
  • Most articles reported the incident together with the hiatus and the resumption of the Hokkaido arc. It is extremely clear that mentioning them together in the career section is much more natural than separating the info.
  • I am pretty sure that lullabying and Xfansd are trying to separate the info to make the incident stand out. But there is a wikipedia policy "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper
Wikipedia is not a place to fulfill your personal motivation or emotion.--61.114.202.68 (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP, please assume WP:GOODFAITH instead of accusing other editors for fulfilling a "personal agenda." This is an issue that's been going on with several IPs who have been pushing to keep the information in the career section as seen in this edit. Please avoid attacking other editors and be WP:CIVIL.
I looked through the articles and most of them are just about the charges, such as this one on ANN and this one on Kotaku. Rurouni Kenshin was only added as an afterthought to provide context on who the author was. His charges affected his career but the reason for them is unrelated.
Separating it into a different section does not fall under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. It is not original reporting (1), the tone is not written in a "breaking news" format nor is it treating the info discriminately (2), people involved were notable (3), and it is not trivia (4). Furthermore we are not the Japanese Wikipedia and we are not required to follow their style of formatting unless it falls under WP:MOS. lullabying (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I refrained from commenting for numerous reasons. First, dealing with an IP hopper complicates everything. Second, my edits clearly improve the article and therefore speak for themselves. This is supported by the fact that myself, lullabying, and Tintor2 (not to mention various IPs) reverted to the version with a personal life several times. Which means it is the consensus by default and the single IP hopper is the one against it. So when the IP accused me of violating consensus, I laughed it off due to the hypocrisy. I have no problem telling you that my personal opinion is that Watsuki's situation is not a big deal at all, what he possessed was legal in Japan up until 2014, so if anything I would downplay it not emphasize it like the IP suggested. For some reason IP thinks putting legal troubles in a Personal life section, somehow emphasizes that one thing over everything else in the same section. How does one respond to something as ridiculous as that? As I stated in my last edit summary to the article, the IP has no argument. Xfansd (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This edit is separating the info and the edit summary is "It's a serious crime and people should know". So we can clearly see the editor tried to separate the info to fulfill his personal objective "to make the incident stand out so that people know the crime". Of course Wikipedia is not a place to fulfill such a personal objective.
this one on ANN is not used in the article.
this one on Kotaku is used in the article, but the editor cited an original Japanese article and mistranslated. As mentioned above, he was NOT charged in November, he was just referred to prosecutors, which is different from charge. The editor of Kotaku clearly mistranslated so we should delete the source by the editor.
Other sources which translated correctly mention the hiatus and resumption of the Hokkaido arc, so should be mentioned in the career section.
[1]
[2]
[3]
--157.107.25.188 (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, is this a new person or the same IP hopper? (See why I tried to avoid this?) The editor who made that edit has been blocked, so that's taken care of. You listed a bunch of sources, and if you were the one who caught the mistranslation - good job, but no one is arguing over sources here. What the sources say affects what we put in the article, but they have nothing to do with how we layout the article. This discussion is about putting the Personal life section back in. Xfansd (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Xfansd. The point here is the sources reported the incident together with the resumption and the hiatus of the Hokkaido arc. So obviously it is much more natural to mention the incident in the career section because the incident is closely related to the resumption and the hiatus of the Hokkaido arc. The Japanese version of this article also mentions the incident in the career section. Of course it is not compulsory for us to follow them, but there is no reason for us to take a different layout. Both editors in the Japanese version and English version strive to improve the article, but looks like Lullabying is just making "put the incident in the personal life section" his top priority, without considering the quality of the article. Considering the natural flow of the article, it is extremely clear that the incident should be mentioned in the career section. Separating the info just confuses readers.--157.107.25.188 (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP, please consider registering for an account on Wikipedia to avoid confusion. Currently there is no consensus established on what to do with the article and I'm afraid I cannot take an IP address' word for it especially since it's easy to masquerade as multiple IPs. Currently, Xfansd, Tintor2, and I are in agreement. I do not know which editors have opposed it besides you, which is why I created this request for comment to make things clearer.
Several other celebrities with similar controversies/trials (see Bill Cosby, Kanye West, Eminem) have had them sectioned off from their career section because like Watsuki, their charges were not directly related to their careers. His career did not cause it -- the articles provided only give context to who he is in relation to him being in the news, and his career was only impacted because of his charges. lullabying (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And why do you only care about cause? If the result has something to do with the career, the incident should be mentioned in the career section. And I proved above that the sources reported the incident together with the hiatus and the resumption of the Hokkaido arc.--110.4.167.63 (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Eh, it's a judgement call based on section size (as in MOS:BODY). The articles for celebrities with controversies that @Lullabying: linked above have far more extensive controversy sections, so separate headings for those articles are a no-brainer. For this article, it's less clear-cut because a single paragraph for a section may seem a bit small to some.
Though... I would have expected to see this kind of controversy in its own section, as that usually seems to be the case. So looking through the page history, it looks like one idea was to put the incident under a "Personal Life" section, as in this revision. It makes sense to put the information about his wife into a "Personal Life" section anyway (why is it buried in the "Career" section right now?) I don't think this makes the incident stand out particularly more than under the "Careers" section, because it's still hidden underneath an unassuming heading. If we really wanted to make the incident stand out, we would mention it in the lede or have a subsection specifically identifying it.
I do however agree with the IP(s) that the incident was mainly reported in the context of the mangaka's manga career, so it also makes sense to keep it under the "Career" section. Perhaps we could put the incident into a subsection under the "Career" section. The "Career" section is starting to look a bit long, so more subsections here would make the article nicer anyway.
Anyway, here are some comparable scandal examples:
The general trend seems to be that longer more developed articles tend to have separate sections for controversies/scandals, whereas shorter more stub-like articles usually don't. Make of that what you will. -- Ununseti (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding subsections can be an option, but the subsections will be according to his works, not an event. Emphasizing a single particular event is not good according to Wikipedia policy, unless the incident is enough big. In this case, the author did not even get arrested, nor even sent to trial. If we were to add subsections, I recommend 1. Early career, 2. Rurouni Kenshin (original series) era, 3. After Rurouni Kenshin, or something like that.--110.4.167.63 (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP, having it under a subsection won't emphasize it too much. Like Ununseti said, it would only be emphasized if we added it to lead (which is supposed to be a summary of the entire article). Whether or not you agree, this is something that has happened and needs to be written objectively, not through a fan's perspective. lullabying (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ununseti: The articles only report information about his career to give context as to who he is. The charges aren't directly related to his work. I think information about his charges would be perfectly okay under "Personal life" (i.e. Ai Kago, Mari Yaguchi, Hitomi Yoshizawa); however, if it's too short, then having it under a subsection in "Career" is perfectly fine. Maybe have the section labeled "XXXX-present: Rurouni Kenshin: Hokkaido Arc, 2017 charges", etc. lullabying (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, 110.4.167.63 . Subsections usually are, in fact, used in Wikipedia articles when a single yet notable (and mostly unrelated) item of information is presented in the text. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the incident is not notable. The author was not even arrested nor sent to trial. And the incident was reported together with the hiatus of his work. The current article is perfectly fine and no need to change.--61.114.201.55 (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have not commented at all about the specific event's notability. I simply pointed out that what you wrote about subsections is incorrect, since, in fact, they are used in Wikipedia articles for a single event. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think a subsection is perfectly fine in this case. The event is notable (see #2 on WP:EVENT, since it also gained international coverage in news media. lullabying (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Making it part of the subsection's title would be emphasizing the event, which seems to have been the reason for IP's actions in the first place (although there was flawed logic there as a section titled Personal life would in no way do that). I am also against emphasizing it. I can not see what is making this such a big discussion; the IP was the only one reverting due to flawed logic, that has now been explained to them. Let's just put it in the Personal life section like everyone else thought was better. Xfansd (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Lullabying is just trying to fulfill his personal objective to make the incident stand out. I agree with Xfansd in that a subsection would emphasize the event but personal life section would not, but I still think the incident should be in the career section as it already is. Most sources reported the incident together with the hiatus and resumption of the Hokkaido arc, therefore we should describe them together. The current version is perfectly fine. --14.3.115.98 (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separate section A personal life section will suffice just fine, but this is clearly not a topic which is primarily about the subject's career (no matter that the two subjects are both incidentally discussed together in some sources because the news of the illegal activity impacted work on his latest project). Indeed, I see the need to point out some inconsistencies between relevant policies and the IP's arguments on the importance/"notability" of the topic (put in scare qoutes here because the way they use this term does not correspond to what WP:Notability means under our polices), which often drift directly into the realm of WP:original research; we don't need an arrest, trial, or any other criminal procedure before we can discuss a given topic to a particular extent, as per this or that editor's idiosyncratic analysis of how important that make any allegation of illegality. The test rather, is simply the WP:WEIGHT of coverage in reliable sources. in that sense, looking at the sources here and doing additional searches, I think a separate section would be perfectly WP:DUE even if it were expressly labelled to reference this event. That said, discussing it in a personal life section is also a perfectly reasonable option and an acceptable one as a middle ground solution to the content dispute here. Snow let's rap 05:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lullabying is the one who was talking about notability in the context of original research, as I never mentioned we did not need to describe the incident in the article. What I am against is emphasizing the incident, and most articles where the subject got fined such as Roberto Firmino, Hugo Lloris, Yaya Touré do not have a subsection for the incident and some of them got arrested, while the subject of this article did not even get arrested. Therefore the current version is perfectly fine, and the Japanese version of the article, which obviously have sources which English sources cited and translated, put the incident in the career section because the sources reported the hiatus and the resumption of the Hokkaido arc together with the incident, so we also should mention the incident in the career section.--61.114.201.186 (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have been framing this in terms of notability, immediately above. Also, please note that WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are not typically accorded much weight on this project; the facts are invariably different between articles (for example, each of the cases you mentioned there involve drink driving offenses, not remotely the same kind of charge faced by the subject in the present case), the weight of sources is certain to be different and, ultimately, the editors may not have made the most policy consistent call in the case of other articles, and most importantly. Each article's editors come to their own WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on how to apply this project's policies based on the particulars of the details and the sourcing available. And once again, ultimately it is the WP:WEIGHT of the sources that determines emphasis, not any editor's personal call on it's importance. Frankly, you seem a bit invested in this, but while it's entirely possible that the consensus will move this into the personal life section as opposed to an independent section, it's pretty clear you are alone in advocating for it being in the career section and that your arguments for doing so are not holding water with the other editors (whether previously active here or RfC respondents) so I'd be prepared to give up on that point. Snow let's rap 07:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have already proved that

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nobuhiro_Watsuki&oldid=882759574"