Talk:Debito Arudou/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Let's resolve this issue: What is Debito Arudou notable for?

Hello WP editors. May I suggest that we get to the root of an issue:

We have already established through more than one AfD that Debito Arudou (let me refer to myself in the 3rd-person abstract) is notable enough to justify a Wikipedia entry.

The question now becomes, what is Dr. Arudou notable for?

How you approach the issue will probably determine which category you fall into, and how much cutting or inclusion you would argue for (it's obvious where I stand). But I bring this up because 1) if any of these categories can be resolved through WP guidelines in the first place, that would be helpful; 2) the lack of clarity is encouraging editorial monomania, and 3) we are essentially, after more than ten years of this BLP and eight archives of this Talk Page, not all that much closer to a good BLP in this case.

Let’s resolve this one crucial issue so we can move forward. Thank you. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 00:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • It's clear that the man is known (and written up) for more than the onsen case, so any attempts to remove reliably-sourced information about other things should be rejected outright. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The subject is notable because he meets the requirements listed at WP:BASIC. Once that requirement is met, as Mr. Stradivarius notes above your question becomes irrelevant with respect to the content of this article. The relevant key policies related to content are WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. VQuakr (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your replies, which resolve issue a). But in regards to b) and c), the question should be irrelevant if the relevant key policies related to content are WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. But then why is so much time spent on this Talk Page (and I mean, just on this one, without going through the copious archives) on issues such as WP:UNDUE, WP:ACADEMIC, WP:NOTPROMOTION, and even WP:FRINGE, especially when it is used to argue against inclusion of published (and cited and reported-on) materials? Further, why are the editors (some SPAs) that keep arguing those issues editing this BLP? How do we forestall the criticism that by suggesting anything noteworthy, I am trying to change this BLP into another version of my resume? Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 02:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
As to the last question, if someone is persistent enough, there may never be an end to it. If there are indeed SPAs, they get blocked if caught. I'd be careful about making such accusations (or hinting at it), though, without strong evidence—otherwise you'll just paint yourself as the guy who accuses everyone of sockpuppetry, and people will stop taking your allegations seriously. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Of the four you mentioned, WP:UNDUE is a subsection of WP:NPOV; WP:ACADEMIC is a notability guideline and has no further relevance; WP:NOTPROMOTION would apply if you began editing the article in a promotional manner; and we are still waiting for Oddexit's explanation on how WP:FRINGE could possibly apply. As for your last question, we have a shortcut method for dealing with problem editors in specific sensitive topics (including biographies of living persons) called discretionary sanctions. Simply being a single-purpose account is not a problem behavior, though - provided that they are careful to "avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral". VQuakr (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the current publications section - without any reviews, good or bad - is definitely an improvement. Do we have a source for the EFL textbooks? I tried to add some, but can find absolutely nothing for these; I did an ISBN search using the ISBN numbers at debito.org, but it comes back saying the books don't exist. Regarding the academic papers, I don't know how much academic cred Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus should get, but in any event the article Arudou has posted there now is not an academic paper in any traditional sense of the word, it's a write-up of his Otaru onsen case, no sources, and the only link is to his blog and advertisements for his books. The article says he's been published in 'other peer-reviewed journals in Asia-Pacific studies', but there's no source for this. I think the Japan Focus bit should be removed and instead sources should be added for the other 'peer reviewed' research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandTheftVotto (talk • contribs) 08:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the EFL textbooks at WorldCat—perhaps that's enough reason to leave them out. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we need content to be verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VQuakr (talk • contribs) 16:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
As long as we're being thorough...Does the 'Japan Policy Research Institute recommended reading' bit constitute a review / recommendation? Another review by a review site was more critical of the book; if that shouldn't be added perhaps the JPRI comment should also be removed. On the other hand it's a relatively cut-and-dry 'fact' as given, so perhaps the only thing that needs to be done is adding a proper source (the current source is clearly wrong). Actually many of the cites and sources are wrong. The FRANCA related cite seems to be wrong/missing. The 'Japan Today' link is to his blog and thus probably not appropriate. I updated the Japan Times link for the article noting his protest letter on being stopped at the Shin-Chitose Airport, but the link to the 'press conference covered by a local TV program' is not correct, and in any event if the only reason for the cite is for the press conference, that was already noted in the Japan Times article. After reading up on it a bit, I'm somewhat concerned about the Shin-Chitose news item: it appears the incident was created by Arudou himself: by his own accord he hung around the exit area, recorder on as he waited to be stopped, and he had a reporter at Hokkaido Shinbun lined up beforehand to take the story. That his press conference was picked up by the newspaper that runs his column isn't that surprising; I wish we had a more neutral cite, such as for the Mr. James story. GrandTheftVotto (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how notable the JPRI is, but I imagine that could be cut, and the rest could be cut our trimmed without losing anything of vital importance. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Votto, better sources are needed for negative coverage than positive. Quit pretending that everything must be removed just because a letter to an editor was not accepted as a source for attacks on the subject. Please review WP:SYN regarding your personal analysis of the content in the sources. VQuakr (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
What are you going on about? I've noted that there isn't a cite for the Japan Policy Research Institute. I've noted that the EFL books don't seem to even exist. I've noted that other links are either wrong, non-existent, or point to his own blog, and I've also spent time finding and updating other cites. What 'negative' coverage are you accusing me of adding?? And I'm not sure why you think this is specifically to do with the book review link - although since you brought it up, as far as I can tell, there never was a 'consensus' that JapanReview.net was not appropriate as a source. A couple of editors thought it wasn't, a couple of editors that it was. GrandTheftVotto (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Is it common for the notability question to keep arising on an article, despite being fixed many times? Some of this could come from that editors of articles about Japan in English Wikipedia might be inherently unrepresentative of the anglophone community of Japan (itself a tiny group) who stumble across this article and find the subject distasteful or irrelevant.
Notability has been established and the article has existed for a long time with some acceptable referencing. The amount of effort some people seem to put in to suggesting the subject isn’t notable after this has been accepted, actually supports notability. The subject is really mostly known as a blogger. It is bizarre that this isn’t mentioned in the article. He runs one of the longer running blogs in English about problems someone of foreign appearance had living. But the Onsen case is key to it – this early success along is what made the author “famous” and brought the blog to prominence in the English-speaking immigrant community in Japan. All the later career efforts – journalism, authorship, and travel writer all stem from the success of the blog. However, just an article about the onsen case is silly; though that is what drove the notability, the brand of Debito is much larger and relevant to enough that foreign media respects his view point. The previous activism seems to have stopped, and the subject himself has said he would no longer be doing anything active in the field. But the research and academic career hasn’t developed into anything notable and doesn’t seem to have produced anything of importance. I don’t support getting rid of key background information that establishes the author’s relevance to his subject and making this singly about the onsen case. Re-angling the subject as a researcher, which is clearly what Debito wants, would be equally ridiculous. The article would be best served in my opinion by discussing the subject’s background/connection to Japan/naturalization (important for a reader to understand who the subject is and why their opinion was important to some), the blogging/onsen case/former activism (this is why people know about the subject and why there are two opinions of him) and the peripheral activities should form a minor note, publication lists supporting this would not be necessary as previously decided. Browny Cow (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
"[T]he subject himself has said he would no longer be doing anything active in the field": citation please. I would suggest that I am still quite active.
"But the research and academic career hasn’t developed into anything notable and doesn’t seem to have produced anything of importance." Define importance under WP guidelines, please.
As for research not producing anything, I might counterargue: [1], source, source, source, source, and another book coming out this year.
As for online scholarly academic journals such as JPRI and Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, I think one might learn a bit more about the increasing credibility and peer-reviewedness of the electronic journal, particularly those two. In this era of the Open-Access movement, they are nevertheless legitimate academic sources that have been around for quite a while (JPRI since the 1990s, headed by the late Chalmers Johnson).
In terms of research, I have done it, and am producing quite a bit from it. I hope we all will too on the viability of sources, and not just rely on second-hand impressions of me as a person. That's what made this BLP a mess in the first place. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 21:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Browny Cow, I agree with you. It is strange that Debito's main success as a blogger isn't mentioned. I feel that you are right that this is how he is known within the English speaking expat community in Japan. I think that mentioning irrelevant topics such as his personal life, or any non-noteworthy / non-essential items should be excluded. I don't see how including ALL of a BLP subjects works (whether these works are in themselves noteworthy or not) really helps create a better BLP. ChemicalG (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

It is normal for a biography to contain biographical information. Noteworthiness is established by editorial consensus subject the policies listed earlier in this section. Our goal on any article is to be comprehensive. VQuakr (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

VQuakr - thank you very much, this makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemicalG (talk • contribs) 04:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

User: Curly Turkey - How exactly do you think I'm ignoring what others say? simply because I have a different opinion to yours? I thought that the purpose of the talk page was for civil discussion, which is what I'm doing. I've never edited anything without consensus. Your tone asserts that I'm not acting in good faith - let me assure you that this is not the case, and request that you keep the language civil. ChemicalG (talk) 08:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

And you've ignored the "treadmill" at the heart of my comment. Simply rehashing arguments that have been repeatedly refuted is obnoxious and wearying. There's certainly nothing I've done or written here that could come across as being pro-Arudou, but these constant attempts at obliterating the article border on troll territory---and indeed there are trolls who inhabit this space. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:31, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If anyone had any doubts that Arudou's page was being trolled, check out my talk page for a friendly message from the IP who's been disrupting the discussion. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Upon request to trim this a bit - here goes... User: Curly Turkey - it would probably be best if you kept things civil, there is no bad intent on my behalf.

Other than that - yes, I understand that due to Wiki policy, that Debito is considered notable (due to the otaru onsen case, and other things reported in the press such as the Mr. James thing, and the Tama-chan 住民票 thing...)

However - to address a few other things that Debito himself brings up - his academic work in itself is not notable (only 4 citations from other academics in reputable journals according to LexisNexis), and I'm not sure whether a column in a newspaper with a readership of 70,000 is noteworthy. However, I recognize that these can be part of the biography, and part of the article (along with the books he wrote, some of which are quite helpful). ChemicalG (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, he isn't 'notable' due to the Tama-chan thing. The group he was with was mentioned in a couple of media pieces. His name isn't mentioned at all in the two sources given for the story (Asahi Shimbun, Newsweek Japan); I think he might be in one of the pictures, but they're all wearing seal costumes and the caption doesn't say. Actually, I don't know if the incident is even a proper According to Hoyle section as far as the article is concerned; clearly the Otaru onsen and Mr James incidents are, as they are better documented. In terms of publications, the book that is probably most useful would be the Handbook, but it was co-written, and there really isn't any evidence that Arudou is an expert in any of the issues presented in the book - nor does he claim to be; adverts for the book plug Debito as a '20yr resident of Japan' and as 'an activist who has personally and professionally confronted discrimination'. That is the extent of his expertise touted in selling the book; the expert advice almost certainly comes from the co-author, a native Japanese licensed solicitor specializing in visa and business matters. And I agree; his academic work is not notable in any sense of the word, his protestations notwithstanding, and the 'academic papers' section and sources suggest an inaccurate picture of his academic accomplishments, which are still extremely limited (not necessarily his fault; he only started out a couple of years ago). Arudou is here trying to promote content for the page - I understand that the Talk page is not the actual article, but I still find it a bit troubling since it's a clear COI, and quite frankly if Arudou is concerned that people are focusing on 'impressions of him'....well, he's not helping, particularly given his past history of willfully lying about his knowledge of Dr Honjo and the sock/meat-puppetry.GrandTheftVotto (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
GrandTheftVotto, you've already had "Notability" explained to you several times—that and your aggressiveness is not giving the impression that you're here to improve the encyclopaedia. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Why does everyone keep harping back on notability? My points above are about reliability, about fairness, weight, and ability to verify. Just because I'm expressing an opinion that something doesn't belong doesn't mean I'm debating his notability, for cryin' out loud. And I've still done more to help his page than most, including correcting and updating links - and who do you think tracked down the verification for his PhD and added it?GrandTheftVotto (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
People keep harping on you about "Notability" because you keep misapplying it—saying he was "notable" for X, Y, and Z, and therefore other things should be ket out of the article. "Notability" applies to whether the article itself should exists—after that, we stop talking about "Notability". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Pls point out where I've talked about Notability in the sense of suggesting the page should or should not exist? GrandTheftVotto (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Please stop suggesting that was my point. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
As the editor has already been warned on his Talk Page, I would suggest he read up on WP:BLP, WP:CIVIL, and WP:COI (particularly sections WP:BLPSELF, where it says that the subject of a BLP is allowed to post suggestions on the BLP's talk page, and WP:BLPKINDNESS, "Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern"). I think he should also retract the comments above that do not follow those guidelines. Thank you. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 19:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This "notability" thing keeps coming up, particularly in regards to searches for my research cited in other works. ChemicalG above has brought up LexisNexis (twice this month) and based upon those results concludes that my research isn't "notable". But LexisNexis, according to Wikipedia, provides information about "legal research as well as business research and risk solution services", with access to "legal and journalistic documents"; it is a "database for legal and public-records related information." Thus it is not an academic database focusing on the Humanities/Social Sciences (my field) in the same sense as, for example JSTOR or Scopus, ProQuest, or even Google Scholar would be. I would enlisting a librarian to help with searches before drawing these conclusions about another researcher's life (I will myself if I really need to put this much effort into substantiating my record to you). Not to mention it brings forth issues of WP:IDHT.

Bear with me for this much detail, but it seems to be necessary: Just based upon my own cursory searches, I have already given links above (section c in the introduction to this topic, and also in response to Browny Cow above) to citations in various academic works and their citations through Google Scholar and Amazon alone. Searches within Amazon text indicate that my works are mentioned as of 2012 in 43 books. JSTOR gives 2 results, and that's only for academic works behind paid firewalls. ProQuest gives 12 results. Google Scholar, which gives us a better idea of Open-Access research, out of 134 results gives a total of 35 citations for my published works (16 total for one paper alone, as in 9 + 7, since researchers couldn't discern between my first and last names). Sixteen citations for one work is not too shabby in this field, yet that paper has not been included on this BLP. That's before we get to the alternate spellings and misspellings of my name. Further, I am not subscribed to Scopus (so I can't check in more detail) but I am listed there under the Scopus Author Identifier, meaning it counts me as a researcher too. Moreover, citations take time to accumulate (as in years), and, again, what is the threshold under WP guidelines for "minimum number of citations" before research becomes "notable"?

The point I'm making is that this line of reasoning is a red herring. Because when my next book comes out this year, it will again take years before citations come down the pipeline -- so does that mean WP can't include it for years until others cite it, even though it is a published work? This threshold of evidence is too high, much higher than for other Japan authors (source), especially when one editor here is arguing for the omission of my best-selling book simply because it is "co-authored". (What if I ever served as editor of an an academic anthology? That can't be counted here either?) That's what I mean about this whole argument being a red herring. It doesn't reflect the reality of how the academic publication field works. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 20:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

There isn't as far as I know a "minimum number of citations". This would be very hard to measure as not all citations are equal and in different fields citation rates differ widely (more than 80% of indexed humanities publications are never cited, whereas only around 10% of medicine publications are garner 0 citations). Probably the most helpful thing would be to have comparisons with the publication record of others in your field who are also notable enough to have wikipedia articles. In light of WP:BLPKIND, I think it inappropriate to discuss your own publication/citation record directly here.Browny Cow (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay then, this strengthens the argument of just how much of a red herring the citations discussion has been. If according to your argument (source please?) that 80% of indexed humanities publications are never cited, the fact that my publications are cited this many times in my field should have more weight to including Debito's emerging status as a researcher in this BLP (and not be dismissed by the editor as "ridiculous"). Further, I'm not sure how WP:BLPKIND fits into the discussion about a publication/citation record. Somebody else brought this issue up, and the discussion has been ongoing for many weeks now, so issues of WP:IDHT may come into play here too. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 00:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The numbers vary, but it’s something widely talked about in academic circles. A search gives this post http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/23/academic-papers-citation-rates-remler/ that links for some sources for you, or the data is easily available from all good indexing providers. Your article also doesn’t yet have information on academic positions as a researcher, which would help establish the subject as a known academic and better make the case for the inclusion of selected publications. Are there sources for this outside his online resume? Would including links to University staff lists be acceptable or would this be original research of primary sources?Browny Cow (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
If this article were about an academic or researcher, it would fail the notability test per WP:ACADEMIC and unfortunately it would be deleted. Those academic / researcher criteria are very specific, clear and helpful in understanding what constitutes notability for a researcher or academic in order to get an article. This does not mean that the subject is not notable as an activist (he is) and not deserving of an article (he is deserving), but to try to refocus the article on academic works when the WP:CONSENSUS has already ruled on the subject of listing academic works is a little strange. Maybe it would make sense to repeat why this article would objectively fail if someone tried to make it about academic / researcher notability. In addition to the usual notability guidelines set out for all subjects that would make the academic/researcher's work notable, an academic or researcher would have to meet one of the seven other specific criteria. 1. "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources... The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." (Comment: I think most reasonable people would agree that a few sporadic citations here and there do not constitute "highly cited" or "several extremely highly cited scholarly publications".) 2. "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." (Comment: The subject has not received any that I am aware of). 3. "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE). (Comment: The subject is not a member of highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association such as the National Academy of Sciences). "4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." (Comment: The subject would need to prove through reliable sources that his peer-reviewed journal articles are on the required reading list or are the basis for a course at multiple institutions.) "5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." (Comment: This criterion is not relevant to the subject because he is not an employed university professor, let alone appointed as a "Distinguished Professor". So, it doesn't count for him. "6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." (Comment: No, as far as I know, the subject has never been employed at a major academic institution or major academic society.) "7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity...Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." (Comment: reviewing the newspaper articles in which he's quoted, the subject is usually identified as an "activist" or a "columnist", not an "academic expert".) "8. The person is or has been head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area." (Comment: This doesn't apply to the subject, either.) "9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC." (Comment: This criterion doesn't apply to the subject, either). Oddexit (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
This focus on notability is starting to get disruptive. I've said it above, but I will repeat it again here: once we have determined that a biography subject is notable, notability plays no further role in deciding what content should go in their article. All that notability guidelines like WP:BIO and WP:PROF determine is whether we should have an article about that person in the first place. Please remember that failing to "get the point" is a form of disruptive editing and can be sanctioned. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect, this section was started by Arudoudebito under the title "Let's resolve this issue: What is Debito Arudou notable for?". Arudoudebito continues to post along with others on this thread, arguing that he is notable as a researcher. You could have shut this thread down from the beginning if you truly believed it was disruptive. You did not ask Arudoudebito or Browny Cow, for example, to stop today or accuse them of disruption per WP:IDHT. Instead, the minute I post in response to his interpretation of citation rates, suddenly you say something. As for the WP:CONSENSUS, that bears the force of policy as you know. If the discussion is about one specific academic work, I welcome a discussion about its noteworthiness to this article per the usual criteria as set out by the WP:CONSENSUS ruling of the RfC above. There's nothing disruptive about that. But that's not what this thread is about. Oddexit (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Because the RfC is now being misinterpreted, I think a refresher is necessary. The RfC (with a leading question including "indiscriminate" worded by Oddexit) was: "Should a BLP contain an indiscriminate list of the BLP's own publications? If not, what should be the inclusion parameters and criteria if the author/newspaper columnist/activist/researcher is prolific? Oddexit (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)". It was not about whether academic publications should included at all because the subject of the BLP is not notable as an academic, which is what Oddexit is ironically arguing as WP:IDHT on the part of admin. Even the RfC's conclusion was "Consensus is that this article should not contain a list of all the subject's academic publications, but arguments can be made for including any given publication if it is deemed important enough in the context of the article. Sam Walton (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)".
So because of this poorly-worded RfC (even I do not support an "indiscriminate list", like I wouldn't support "too much" of anything -- it's a built-in negative word). What that means is that now anyone who ever wants to include any publications by the BLP subject (especially new ones) has to overcome a firewall of "sufficient citations" (which, as I keep pointing out, WP has no guidelines for) before any inclusion, meaning antipathetics have gained leverage to block published works (under the guise of "we can't make this BLP into his CV"). It's a requirement not seen in other BLPs. I'm quite disappointed that RfC wasn't subjected to a discourse analysis (especially given creator Oddexit's obsessive and biased edit record of this BLP) before bad policy grounded in a flawed consensus based on a loaded question was created. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 15:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this might be the last thing I add to this as I don't think I can contribute to this particular BLP in a constructive manner... Debito, I think you should take a look at this: particularly section 5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion I'm not accusing you of self promotion, but this policy outlines clearly what can and cannot be included. If your new book can be cited from reliable third party sources then it can be included - according this policy. Also, concerning the notability of journals, etc. - these are outlined here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals)

Whether or not what you are producing in terms of research is notable and can be included I will leave to the judgment of other editors. I hope this is of help to you. ChemicalG (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals) is about the creation of articles about academic journals, not about mentioning academic works in the aritcles of their authors. Please, we've beaten this subject into the dirt. None of the "Notability" guidelines apply to any of the things we're talking about here. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

So that means that we should include all his listed academic work, provided it is referenced by reliable third party sources? ChemicalG (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Whether we should or should not is a separate question. I think it would be fine to limit it to mentioning that he is active in producing academic work in such-and-such fields, and only mentioning the papers by name if any of them become particularly prominent. That's my opinion, though, not policy. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
We do have a policy, sort of - the consensus was 'the article should not contain a list of all the subject's academic publications, but arguments can be made for including any given publication if it is deemed important enough in the context of the article'. It's pretty clear. If he is 'active' in academic work in such-and-such a field, CurlyTurkey's text looks absolutely fine to me; I don't think any paper has become particularly 'prominent' or important in the context of the article.Going back to my original points: The 'Tama-chan incident' at present is basically unsourced, neither sources mention Arudou by name at all. The article says the event was 'featured in major media, including the Asahi Shimbun and Newsweek Japan', which suggests there were other media - if those sources mention Arudou they could be added. The Japan Today link goes to Arudou's home page, which isn't a reliable third-party source. And I'm not sure what protocol is for referencing a self-published book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandTheftVotto (talk • contribs) 07:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The "mentioned in" sourcing is terrible—if a third-party source had said it was mentioned in major media, that would be citable, but you don't make such claims with primary sources. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I think a lot of hang up is going on regarding using the word notability, its WP meaning for articles but also used in its real sense. Plenty of BLP discuss biographic detail about subjects not based on what they are known for and it is possibly helpful or interesting to have that information in a BLP. Articles frequently mention background information, family, charity work as well as hobbies or similar. So I don’t see the problem in mentioning the research, but oppose attempts to cast the subject as a professional researcher known for his academic work and important in his field, there just doesn't seem to be any evidence for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Browny Cow (talk • contribs) 22:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
"There just doesn't seem to be any evidence for that". After all the discussion and repeated links in this very section substantiating Debito's citation and publication record (not to mention a doctorate; this means certified academic expertise), is this not becoming another case of WP:IDHT? Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 23:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
As said before, the article lacks information about a professional academic position as a researcher and I couldn't find any sources regarding this. Could you help with references for this? The publication record and lack of citations just don't stand up to examination as substantiating someone "known for his academic work and important in his field". But it could just be that publications in your field are generally weak, so yet again it would be helpful to identify WP articles of key researchers in your field or perhaps there is a profile of you in a trade journal or an academic review of your work Browny Cow (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
No, as was said before (in this very section), academic search engines do turn up my name as a researcher, a published researcher, and a cited researcher. Now we're arbitrarily switching channels and have to find trade journals (in my field?) or academic reviews of my work? I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Neither does WP, which, as has been said before, makes no requirements of a threshold of citations for inclusion in a BLP. It sounds like we're returning to the Notability conundrum again.
My simple suggestion: If it's published (with, for example, an ISBN or an established journalistic entity with an ISSN), it's a published work includable in this BLP. That squares with WP rules under WP:PUBLISH. That means a lot of stuff I've written and gotten published qualifies for inclusion in this BLP because I'm prolific. Too bad. These are facts of the case. And as the publications increasingly turn academic, that means they qualify for inclusion too. It's not a matter of CV. It's a matter of factuality. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 00:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:PUBLISH is concerned with determining what's a "published source" for the purposes of sourcing. None of your academic work would be used as a source for your own article, no matter where it was published. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Quite. Sorry for my misunderstanding. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 01:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's an idea: instead of "Arudou Debito is a XX, YY, ZZ", equating the man with his activities (in which case leaving out his academic career would be a distortion), how about something like "Arudou Debito is a Japanese citizen best known for ..." ...? I'd further suggest cutting down the list of things he's known for to simply "writing" and "activism". The "writing" would cover his blogging, his column, and both his non-fiction and fiction books. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"activist for foreign-born rights in Japan"?

Dr Arudou, is this acurate? I don't monitor your activities closely, but I could've sworn your activism was for foreigners' rights in general, and not just those of naturalized Japanese. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It is inaccurate. Thank you for asking. I would advise you what to say but then that would turn into accusations that it was changed at my request. You see the dilemma? Things are inaccurate, but if they get changed with (or without) my advisement in a way that could somehow be construed positively it somehow becomes meat puppetry. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 17:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. If something is inaccurate based on the sources it *should* be changed. But no Wikipedian is supposed to ask the subject what is truth based on his verbal cues. That's original research. They should do what everyone does on Wikipedia and read the reliable sources and document what they say per policy, and not have to worry that the subject will publicly attack the journalist, the legal scholar, or the Wikipedia contributor for allegedly misquoting him, or misrepresenting him, or somehow being out to get him every time a reliable source is added. The Boy Who Cried Wolf is relevant here. Oddexit (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll see Oddexit's Aesop and raise her a Shakespeare: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". She must think Wikipedians have short memories: The record shows that each one of these reliable sources has been misquoted/misinterpreted for this BLP by Oddexit, be they the journalist (Section 2.1.2), the legal scholar, or the Wikipedia contributor (mostly Oddexit herself). No matter. I'll always be around to remind everyone. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 22:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Oddexit: I wasn't about to change it based on his word, but his word gives us a basis with which to track down sources (or not) to confirm (or not) the statement. I mean, seriously Oddexit, my edit history shows I'm more than well-versed in how and how not to source an article, so let's lay off accusations of OR. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I was looking at what I wrote just after I posted and said to myself, "Maybe I should reword it to say 'we' instead of a general 'you' unless @Curly Turkey: gets the impression that I was responding to his comment and not Arudoudebitos." Then I stopped myself. I probably should have. I'm sorry about that. Oddexit (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Current "activist for the rights of foreigners in Japan" is also inaccurate as he also worked against racist directed at Japanese who looked non-Japanese, such as hafu and naturalized citizens.Browny Cow (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I would agree. I hate to keep saying "try again everyone until you get it right" without suggesting a phrasing, but if I do, I'll be accused of CV-ing. Admins, am I allowed to suggest? Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 23:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
You don't have to ask an admin. You're perfectly within your rights to suggest anything you want and leave it to the rest of us to decide what to do with it. I'm thinking it'd be something like "human rights activism"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, then let me suggest the opening sentence read "Debito Arudou (有道 出人 Arudō Debito?, born David Christopher Schofill on 13 January 1965) is a Japanese author, columnist, activist, and researcher known for his work in the fields of human rights and racial discrimination in Japan". (Not sure where to include "blogger", if you think it need be included.) Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 00:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd be fine with something like that though my own preference would be to merge "author" and "columnist" into "writer"—a lot of WP biographies really go to absurd lengths to capture every faucet of a person's activities in an undening list of occupations in the opening sentence. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Advice for improving this BLP (7): Please fix grammar in intro

Hello Editors. Thanks as always for your constructive edits.

In regards to that, may I make a polite request? If you're going to tinker with the intro, could you please proofread before hitting Save Page? The current sentence:

Debito Arudou (有道 出人 Arudō Debito?, born David Christopher Schofill on 13 January 1965) is Japanese blogger and activist for the rights of foreigners in Japan and also a author and columnist.

has two grammatical errors within (... is A Japanese, ... AN author), and nobody has fixed it for several days. I'd fix it myself, but you know what people will say. Thank you. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 01:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Grammatical/orthographic errors are not violations of WP:BLP, so it would be very nice if you would stop saying "this BLP"; "this article" would work just as well. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Self-published books

don't know where to write it but this page is filled with self-published books by this person, whom no other website knows about. Third-party journalists didn't report on any of the things he said he did. Totally violate Wikimepia's goal. It's too self-serving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.41.232.34 (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism isn't the answer. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok - what is the solution then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.33.132.252 (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Primary and self-published sources aren't barred completely on Wikipedia, but they have to be used with care. In this article they've been used in certain places where leaving them out would distort the facts, but in a lot of places they could be dropped without doing any damage—for instance: According to family legend, he is a descendent of a Cherokee Indian by the name of "Red Feather". There's some resistance to removing certain thinngs, though, since some of the removals are obviously done with ulterior motives. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough - but can you not see why so many people regard Debito's BLP as just an extension of his resume? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.90.133.220 (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
You're right—best get back to vandalizing it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I've never edited debito's page. I'm not the original poster. I'm located in South Korea, as you can probably see from my ip. I guess making presumptions like that is fine if it fits in with your narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.254.145.76 (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It can be hard to keep track of which IP addresses belong to people hopping from one address to the next, and which ones belong to people who aren't. If you would like to take advantage of our community's institutional memory, you should probably create an account. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - I might well do that. Although, I doubt that I'd be a frequent contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.254.145.76 (talk) 09:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
211.33.132.252 and 115.90.133.220 are both Korean IP addresses—the funny thing is that 126.254.145.76 is a Japanese address, yet that's the commenter saying "I'm located in South Korea". They're clearly all the same person. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Turkey, I could have told you that... I'm not the same person you are talking about, yes I'm in Japan sometimes and Korea others. But I'm not the same person who started this thread and I'm not the same person who vandalized/edited negatively debito's page. However I did ask the question of how we should deal with this situation because from an outsider perspective this page is nothing more than a glorified cv. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.152.8.198 (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2015‎ (UTC)
Curly Turkey already trimmed a lot of stuff that was cited to primary sources after the original post on the 16th - is that looking better? If there are other things that you would like to see trimmed, go ahead and edit the page. If your edits look ok, then they'll be accepted for other readers to see. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Relationship to Yunohana pre-1999

Supposedly Arudou posted in an online forum way back when that he had advised the management against a "No Russians" sign because that would be discriminatory, and the "No foreigners" sign resulted. I'm sure if Arudou actually meets GNG some reliable third-party sources can be found to either confirm or deny this. If Arudou himself denies this .... well, primary sources denying this would be unduly self-serving, but only citing Arudou's side of the story is debatably a BLP-violation against his opponents. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't think anyone's going to accuse me of being a Debito fanboy, but holy shit, Hijiri, this Clark is defending discrimination against Russians and Latinos. The "No Russians" sign being changed to "No foreigners" is hardly incriminating for Debito, and not reporting it in this article can't seriously be considered a bias. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Off-topic rant about Clark
First, I don't think the Clark blog mentioned "Latinos". I'm not that familiar with the incident in question but I had always assumed they were nikkei-jin. If I was wrong I apologize. As for what Clark was advocating, if you read carefully he says that the problem was with people violating the rules, nationality be damned. He also points out that in most western countries the existence of a bathhouse that doesn't require bathers be registered members who have been screened is unthinkable, so saying that "Japan is racist" because a white guy was once denied entry to a facility that in his home country would deny entry to just about everyone is beside the point. I'm not sure what Clark's position on forcing Japanese businesses to print multilingual guidelines for customers is, but saying he defends racism is an oversimplistic epithet used by Arudou and his supporters.
"Latinos working in Japan can be another problem. They have a fascination for jewelry and given a chance will spend hours googling at displays with no intention of buying. There is also the problem of foreigner theft gangs using the technique of diverting staff attention while they steal from unattended shelves. Are small jewelry shops in Japan supposed to hire extra staff just to handle these situations?"
That's only one snippet of the racist apoligism in this hit piece. He makes the odd point: Debito's a letigious loudmouth, racism is a much bigger problem in the rest of Asia, there are bigger instances of racism that Debito has not tackled, etc.—but he blows it with this apologism ("some Russians, Chinese, and Brazilians are KY wrt the local customs, so of course they deserve to be discriminated against" bullshit). He puts on his "voice of reason" and parrots the racists' rationalization. That's sick. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
And my main point is really that Arudou, whose bio has received almost no coverage in reliable third party sources, probably doesn't meet GNG as an independent topic. Our coverage of his martiage and divorce is based entirely on his blog, so naming his ex-wife inline when said blog paints a very negative picture of her is somewhat dubious. We aren't at liberty to give the other side of any story involving Arudou because there are no sources except unreliable primary ones, and they are only allowed when they paint "the subject" in a positive light. I know I'd never win an AFD debate, but I do feel BLP as a policy is self-defeatingdoesn't work when non-GNG individuals who are controversial (but only in blogs) get their own articles. The same applies to that Power Rangers actor who is best-known for stealing from sick children (or something) whose article just barely got deleted a few months back: if BLP and a lack of sources prevent us from following NPOV, then the article is merged, trimmed or deleted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
If only the self-published sources name his wife, then it should go. I could've sworn we already had this conversation and had it removed already, but I guess I'm misremembering. I'll do that now. I disagree the article should go (the third-party sources are not all about Otaru), but it should definitely be cut down to what third-party sources have to say, except where the third-party sources leave important holes. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Third-party sources do name her (and his daughters) so I've left it in, though I suppose it could be argued they could all go unnamed without hurting the article. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Edit: Actually, fuck it, I've dropped it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: You've been around here for longer than me, so you should know that a person doesn't need to have every incident in their life covered in reliable, independent sources for them to pass the GNG. If you really think that Arudou doesn't pass the GNG then you are welcome to nominate the page for deletion, but I think you are right in saying that such a deletion request wouldn't have much chance of being successful. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Linkedin

Hello all,

I think we should provide a link to Debito's linkedin profile; https://www.linkedin.com/in/arudoudebito

It should be very useful for Dr. Debito, PhD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.236.144.210 (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

We generally provide a single "official" link controlled by the subject, since having a bunch of social media sites in the external links section looks clunky. The subject is of course welcome to link other sites from their website, and the linkedin account is pretty easily found via Google. VQuakr (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Persistent little IP-hopping troll, ain't we? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Some problems with this article

Hello everyone,

I'm fairly certain that we all agree that there are some problems relating to this article. I think if these aren't addressed, then this article will continue to attract trolls, and that this talk page will grow well beyond the current 11 archives...

  1. Is the subject really noteworthy? Sure, he blogs (in English), and had a certainly noteworthy court case, and has been mentioned in newspaper from time to time, but does this make him truly noteworthy? He isn't a notable academic, isn't really a "human rights activist" - but an English language blogger, who had a court case. I understand from previous discussions that other wikipedia editors have a different opinion here, and I understand that the "known for" section is essentially how the subject views themselves.
  2. The page has gone from one extreme to another. I don't think that the previous version, with a detailed "criticism" section was balanced either, but now it appears to be almost akin to an online CV.
  3. Debito himself causes problems with sockpuppet edits, and "suggestions".

Would it not be a good idea to consider merging this into another article (e.g. one about discrimination issues in Japan, or the Otaru Onsen case), or truncating this article to reduce the largely irrelevant things that don't relate to what Debito is known for? Do we really need the "publications" section listing his works? Can't that be brought into the main article, keeping the relevant points and trimming it down? I think keeping this "publications" section there makes it look too unbalanced. ChemicalG (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

About #1 - notability is not subjective. We don't base the decision to have a stand-alone article on subjective things like occupation or appearances in court cases; we base it on whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources, i.e. whether they have been noted by the world at large. If you think that Debito doesn't pass the notability criteria for biographies then you are welcome to nominate the page for deletion, but I doubt that such a nomination would be successful. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's stop pretending. ChemicalG has had all this explained before and is just being contentious. The wording of his comments is virtual the same, and in the same tone, as the army of IPs which bombard this page which are all clearly connected to ChemicalG. Can we stop feeding this troll? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not connected to any of that.ChemicalG (talk) 11:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"Sensitive" non-Japanese Caucasian minorities as written is violation of WP:SYNTHESIS

Dear editors. Debito here, the subject of this BLP. Another edit request:

Under "Other Protests" in the BLP, it reads: "Writing in The Japan Times, Arudou argued that the "Mr. James" campaign perpetuates negative stereotypes about sensitive non-Japanese Caucasian minorities living in Japan".

Nowhere in any of the articles referred to is the word "sensitive" mentioned. This is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. So could we please remove the word "sensitive"? Thank you very much. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 20:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it is a WP:SYNTHESIS violation, and I've removed it. It was left over from this edit from 2011, and unfortunately no-one noticed it until now. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Debito Arudou. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about notability guidelines for inclusion of published works

Dear Editors,

Debito again here, subject of this BLP. I have a question about the inclusion of my publications on this BLP again.

It's a discussion we had before, which resulted in an RfC created by a SPA troll (who, after being banned from this BLP for obsessively editing it in a biased manner, has not edited again, anywhere, since). Since it is by now clear that that SPA was only here to add biased edits about its subject (that's why she was banned), this would apply to her RfC too, which says:

"Should a BLP contain an indiscriminate list of the BLP's own publications? If not, what should be the inclusion parameters and criteria if the author/newspaper columnist/activist/researcher is prolific?"

Again, the bias is latent, as that's not the issue. Even I would not support an "indiscriminate list" (just I would not support "too much" of anything, by definition). She front-loaded the survey with a leading question to precipitate an outcome for future omission of publications on arbitrary grounds. Because of the results of this flawed RfC, we have established room for trolls to set up arbitrary hurdles for publications just because they are mine.

I publish a lot. Sorry. Writing is what I do, and it gets published in reputable places. Further, listing the published works of published authors is standard practice on Wikipedia. Their published works do not have any extra hurdle for their "notability" under arbitrary editorial preferences. However, this BLP does. Proponents for keeping publications off are less concerned about accuracy and facts of the case than for their own personal interpretation of this BLP as a CV.

Again, my stance is the obvious: If it's a work published in a reputable source, then it's up for listing on a Wikipedia BLP. If it gets listed, with a link provided to Amazon or that reputable publishing house, then it's merely a fact of the case.

I say this because my latest book, Embedded Racism: Japan's Visible Minorities and Racial Discrimination (up for pre-order at Amazon) is coming out shortly. I have trouble imagining what arbitrary threshold would make it "notable" enough for inclusion on this BLP. Except that it's a published academic textbook from a reputable publisher of academic work.

Could editors in the know please let us what WP's larger guidelines are on this? Should we run another RfC? Thanks for reading and considering.Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 23:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The RfC was archived here with a December 2014 close indicating that a list of all academic publications should not be included, but an argument for a particular publication could be raised. However, it was a pretty weak RfC and I wouldn't get very excited about it. I suggest the past be forgotten and we should avoid the distractions of referring to the SPAs with an obvious agenda—they appear to be gone for the moment, and will be handled if they return. There is no hard rule but the principle is that if an article has little other than a list of publications, the list is probably undue. Also, some academics have dozens of publications and there is no need to list them all as an article is not supposed to provide an exhaustive list of anything. Another principle is WP:CRYSTAL which says that we should wait until a book is actually released before noting it, unless significant discussion among independent reliable sources has occurred. Please put a note here when the book is available, and also note any publications which you think should be included. If they were once included, it might be handy to include a link to the old version of the article. I support the inclusion of a book and any other significant publications. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Debito—don't go looking to other poorly-developed articles for examples of how an article should be done. If that Gregory Clark one were taken to WP:GAN or WP:FAC, the lists of works would not survive without sources to back them up (in part to ensure it's not an arbitrary list, for example). When your new book comes out, if it gets reviewed it merits mention in the article; if not, it doesn't. With some BLPs it's easy to include such a list—there are third party sources that provide a list of works. If there were such a source out there for you we could do the same. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, everyone. Another question about this bit: If something "gets reviewed it merits mention in the article". Does "reviewed" include "cited in a publication"? Thanks. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 03:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Why not? According to WP:NB, "A book is notable, and generally merits an article, if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[5]" That's books, and that's for creation of articles about the book in specific. My question is: How would one decide how to list "notable works" by a BLP of author? What about publications that get cited within published academic publications? Is there a threshold of citation numbers (similar to the threshold of two non-trivial published works)? I'm sorry to be persistent. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 06:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to generalize. Please post a link to a page with information about the book, and links to any independent sources you know of that mention it. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:NB is a guideline about which books deserve a stand-alone article, and which don't. That's not the same thing as deciding which books belong in a publications list in an article about their author. We use different rules for determining article content than we do for determining whether a topic is suitable for an article (see WP:NNC for more info). — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
That's a bit clearer now. Thanks everyone! Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 18:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
To add to Mr. Stradivarius's comment, WP:WORKS is our style guide on lists of works. From that guideline: "Lists of published works should be included for authors, illustrators, photographers and other artists. The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles." VQuakr (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

American-born Japanese

Is this the best term for Arudou? I think it typically refers to ethnically Japanese individuals who are American citizens by birth - like Taro Daniel, Akino (singer), Cathy Reed. There are similar terms like American-born Chinese that are used in the same way. Cannolis (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Embedded Racism mentioned in newspaper review

Dear Editors, My book Embedded Racism has been mentioned in a published review. Please add it to this BLP. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/12/19/commentary/recommended-reading-holidays-beyond/

Thank you very much. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 19:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Curly Turkey for putting the book up. Could I ask an additional favor: Please shift the sentence about the book from its current paragraph to the last paragraph, if not its own paragraph? That way the publications remain chronological. Would suggest this:
In 2011, Arudou self-published his first novella entitled In Appropriate: a novel of culture, kidnapping, and revenge in modern Japan. The novella tells the story of an transnational marriage, culture shock, and child abduction..[46]
Arudou has published twice in Fodor's Japan Travel Guide, in 2012[48] (Hokkaido Chapter) and 2014 (Hokkaido and Tohoku Chapters).[49] He has also published academic papers in The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus[50] and other peer-reviewed journals in the interdisciplinary field of Asia-Pacific Studies, and has contributed chapters to academic books published by Akashi Shoten (Tokyo)[51] and Springer.[52]
In 2015 he published Embedded Racism: Japan's Visible Minorities and Racial Discrimination through the Lexington Books imprint of Rowman & Littlefield.[53]
Thanks. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 20:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I guess it doesn't really matter, but I think that reads kind of weirdly: a book in 2011, followed by parts of a travel guide in 2012 and 2014, the some journals and chapters of books in whenever, then another book in 2015 ... I mean, if it were in list form, you'd keep the books together, wouldn't you? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit suggestion for section on Early life and education.

Dear Editors,

Thank you for considering my edit suggestions for this BLP thus far. Another one I would like you to consider is, under the section "Early Life and Education", is this bit:

"Arudou joined a small Japanese trading company in Sapporo, where he contends that he was the object of racial harassment.[2]"

Nowhere in the link(s) provided does the word "racial" appear. Workplace harassment is possible given the links, but rendering it as "racial" is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. Would suggest amending "racial" to "workplace", perhaps.

PS: What are the guidelines on BLPs citing blog entries and the Wayback Machine in this case? Thank you. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 22:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The Wayback Machine's fine and many of us use it frequently. Blogs are a different matter, though, and generally fail to be considered Reliable sources. What if we just dropped "racial" so it reads "object of harassment"? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I'm fine with that suggested edit. But if blogs are not considered reliable, I would suggest deleting that sentence or the contents in that section sourced by that blog entry. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 23:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, before doing so, can we get some more voices on this? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it should be removed. As mentioned, the text is severe WP:SYNTH because the original does not mention "harassment" anywhere I can see, and certainly does not claim racial harassment. An argument could be made that it is minor synthesis which would be fine in an article published under an author's name on some other website, but it is standard at Wikipedia to reject such interpretations in a case like this. An approach that would generally be acceptable here would to stick to the facts—this happened, that happened—but there is no source sufficiently reliable to do that, so removal is good. Johnuniq (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
As I understood it, writings by the subject could be considered reliable sources for biographical entries; making blogs allowable in this case? Browny Cow (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Never in cases that involve any level of interpretation. Besides, as Johnuniq says, the blog doesn't actually make that interpretation. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that. The suggested edit or even deleting the sentence (it's not a particularly key point) is right. I just meant to just to answer Dr. Arudou's question about removing the whole sentence because the source was not reliable. There's a few factual assertions that come from that blog in this article, which should be ok. But in general I think this whole article is better these days in terms of not leaning too heavily on the Debito.org blog for sourcing.Browny Cow (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

A month has passed. Do we have a consensus on the section being removed as a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS? Thanks. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 02:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Two months have passed. Do we have a consensus on the section being removed as a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS? Thanks. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 18:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits by GrandTheftVotto. Previously topic banned from this site, please resume ban and revert all edits.

Hello Wikipedia Editors. Please note recent edits from user GrandTheftVotto to this BLP. He has been topic banned from editing this page before. Source: [[2]] Please resume his ban and revert all of his edits. Thank you. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 22:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  • According to the message Mr. Stradivarius left, the ban was indefinite. Was it lifted somewhere? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    • No, and if in doubt you can check on the log page to see if it's still active. I've reverted the edits and blocked GrandTheftVotto for a week. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Just a quick question on mechanics: How do topic bans work? I see there is a way to ban a user from editing everywhere for a certain time period or indefinitely, but how does Wikipedia ban people from editing certain topics? I ask because clearly GrandTheftVotto was able to evade the ban. Do we still have to maintain vigilance against people already banned? Thanks. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 21:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
        • There is no technical method at present to enforce topic bans. If a user violates a topic ban they are usually blocked from editing all articles for a short period of time, and after repeat violations the length of blocking increases, becoming indefinite in extreme cases. There is some more detail at the banning policy. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Debito_Arudou/Archive_11&oldid=1153737767"