Jump to content

Talk:Debito Arudou

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Arudou Debito)

New Name/Alias

[edit]

So Debito Arudou has begun to use the nom du guerre Debito Beamer (easily verifiable on employer websites). When does it become appropriate to list this either as his primary name or as an alias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.253.251.8 (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Debito Arudou. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove recent edits

[edit]

@WhisperToMe:,@Mr. Stradivarius:,Hello Wikipedia Editors. A user who has a history of edit warring and nominating other BLPs for deletion has now turned his attention to this BLP, last December resuscitating edits (the sections called Controversy and Reception) that were removed by other Wikipedia Editors year ago for violation of BLP rules. Please remove those sections again. Thank you.Debito Arudou Ph.D. (Talk) 19:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time at the moment to assess the situation but I have moved this comment to the bottom of the page and shortened the title. Please use + (which might be new section for you) at the top of the page to add a new section, and keep titles short and neutral. Johnuniq (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Debito dont want these kind of things being seen by others even they make perfect sense to stay there. He has a history of doing everything he could to removed informations he dont like so of course he would do everything he can to silence others. Just read his talk page. Also, his arguements were problematic whcih he basically just said that my edits are wrong because I once nominated for someone to be deleted and ignored all my other edits. --Someone97816 (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I haven't yet looked at what this is about. However, your "He has a history of doing everything he could..." is interesting. Do you know something more about this case? I'm just wondering what caused you to edit the article and why you reacted like that. Of course you are correct that Arudoudebito should not have commented in the way he did above but inexperienced editors are often like that. Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just wanna let you know the User VQuakr delete my reply because he think it's "defamatory". You can check the history to see my answer. --Someone97816 (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "WaiWai" section because it barely mentions the subject and a "loudmouth" swipe that was unclearly phrased and sourced to a dead link. @Arudoudebito: WP:BLP doesn't guarantee that all coverage will be positive. Would you say that the current "Reception" section is still not representative of the subject's reception in reliable secondary sources? VQuakr (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the "Little Yellow Jap" section as well. The only source other than debito.org was tanteifile.com, which per its administrator profile page is just run by one person. A publication needs to have editorial oversight to count as a reliable source, and tanteifile.com doesn't meet that bar, so as a consequence the section was failing the WP:BLPSOURCE policy. And per the policy, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to thank the editors for responding. Sorry for my delay. Will reply soon. Debito Arudou Ph.D. (Talk) 23:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, work got suddenly busy, and I wanted to do the requisite research. The problem is with "Criticism" sections (or euphemistically rendered as "Reception" this time; "reception of what" exactly?) is that, as other Wikipedia Editors all the way back in 2014 [[1]] noted, is that they are [magnets for ad-hominem attacks, information cherrypicked for effect], and [[2]]. That's why they are removed nearly a decade ago in the first place.

To respond to @VQuakr, as I've stated many times in the past on this Talk Page and elsewhere [[3]], it's not a matter of being negative. It's a matter of being accurate. For example, even that quote by Alex Kerr, which was up here before and removed, is inaccurate because it's incomplete (go to the article and see how he's actually completed that quote: "That said, perhaps we who live here are slow to stick our necks out when we sense an injustice, and quick to self-censor in order to get along smoothly in our communities. To me the most interesting aspect of Arudou Debito is that, in taking on Japanese citizenship, he has brought the dialogue inside Japan. His activities reveal the fact that gaijin and their gaijin ways are now a part of the fabric of Japan's new society. A very small part of course, but a vocal and real part.") Hence most of the quote is positive, yet that's been deliberately not included any time the cherry-picked Kerr quote has gone up. That's the bias that Criticism sections invariably attract.

Bottom line: Sections like these (in fact, this content verbatim) were adjudged unfit for inclusion by other Wikipedia Editors already many years ago. Will we have to relitigate them every time someone resuscitates them in future? Please remove. Thank you. Debito Arudou Ph.D. (Talk) 18:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Debito - aren't you at all concerned about the optics of your constant requests for changes in your own BLP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yodenshi (talk • contribs) 00:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yodenshi: they are specifically invited to do so at WP:AUTO#IFEXIST. VQuakr (talk) 00:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have warned Yodenshi that they should find another topic. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I've made my arguments and it's been a week. If there are no counterarguments, can you please remove those edits? @Mr. Stradivarius: Thank you. Debito Arudou Ph.D. (Talk) 00:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable statement that dual nationality was retained via "loophole"

[edit]

Dubious statement: "He became a naturalized Japanese citizen in 2000, retaining dual nationality via a loophole."

The source for this is Debito Arudou's own account of the process, from a blog post with an abundance of narrative froth "This was going to be the roughest part of the interview, so I took a deep breath" and reported speech "Dave, that's risky" "You shouldn't do this, Dave" etc.

It's inappropriate to word the Wikipedia entry as if existence of the loophole is a fact at all, or to take on trust from Debito Arudou that it requires a loophole to retain dual nationality - actually you retain dual nationality simply by not giving up either of them. So the only fact we do know is that in the cited source, Debito claimed there was a loophole (he claims a lot of things).

There is really no indication in Japan's Nationality Law that anything he did to acquire Japanese nationality through naturalization prevents him from keeping US nationality. Do read it. So he legally held both, and later, through an explicitly voluntary process, legally dumped his US nationality, though not without an unnecessary tussle with the US authorities who handled his application. (Turns out they don't accept unsigned documents, or indulge argumentative applicants. Voluntary is voluntary.)

The loophole sentence and subsequent reference to relinquishing US nationality would be accurate and would contain all necessary and relevant information in the following form: "He became a naturalized Japanese citizen in 2000, and relinquished his US citizenship in 2002."

Alternatively, it can be written, though hardly improved, by "He became a naturalized Japanese citizen in 2000, retaining dual nationality, which he claims was via a loophole, before relinquishing his US citizenship in 2002."

The naturalization is objectively factual, the dual nationality is factual, the relinquishment is factual, the loophole is not, hence Arudou's own blog as the sole source for that. The simpler sentence that drops all mention of a loophole is better for accuracy, and should give no one cause for complaint. The loophole version is pure Debito. 240B:11:ED20:B100:F85D:27AD:CE22:3DE9 (talk) 06:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source from Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry stating that the Japanese government does remove Japanese citizenship from people with more than one citizenship. Takeuchi cited a court case in which the Japanese Supreme Court upheld the one citizenship practice.
Regarding the word "loophole," I think the point was that if the Japanese government finds out that a naturalized citizen did not relinquish their other citizenship like they were supposed to, the Japanese government could put penalties on the person who did not relinquish the citizenship, including removing the citizenship. The issue is not the US side, per se, but the Japanese side. My understanding is the "loophole" is the Japanese government not finding out that the other citizenship was still kept and therefore, the person with two citizenships not being penalized by the Japanese government. Takeuchi discusses this in her essay:
Takeuchi, Maiko (January 2024). "Japan to Cut Off Japanese? Protecting the ties between Japan and the Japanese citizens who are successful overseas". Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry. - "[...]Japanese nationals with multiple nationality often do not declare their status, so the government is unable to ascertain their actual status. In addition, multiple nationals live with the risk of being discovered and suddenly losing their nationality." - Original Japanese version
The Nationality law (translated) states: "The Minister of Justice shall not permit the naturalization of an alien unless he or she fulfills all of the following conditions:[...](5) that he or she has no nationality, or the acquisition of Japanese nationality will result in the loss of foreign nationality;"
The Takeuchi article states: "The Japanese government states that, in principle, when a foreign national naturalizes, they lose their original nationality; however, if the law of the country does not allow them to renounce their nationality, naturalization is permitted under special circumstances, while retaining multiple nationalities." The U.S. government does permit renouncing U.S. citizenship, however.
I am not advocating for restoring the word "loophole", as this article does not need every single detail, but I am explaining why the word was used, and that the Japanese government does feel that people need one citizenship only under most circumstances.
WhisperToMe (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Debito_Arudou&oldid=1253416991"