Talk:Debito Arudou/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 5 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Suggestion for improving this BLP (1)

I wish to thank all Wikipedians who have taken an interest in improving this BLP. As admin Mr. Stradivarius has invited above, as the subject of this BLP please allow me to comment on this talk page on issues I think should be redressed to make the BLP more accurate and adhere more closely to WP rules. I have done this in much detail elsewhere, but to keep suggestions digestible and edits piecemeal, please allow me to make suggestions in small installments over time:

Suggestion One: Please indicate on this BLP that my research related to the subject of my notability has been published in peer-reviewed academic journals.

As per the RfC above, the vote was that we do not have to give an exhaustive list or indiscriminate list of what I have published. I have published a lot (most of it journalistic in content and venue). However, now that I have a Ph.D., I think would be more accurate to make at least some mention of my academic credentials as I retool my life work into academia. The issue of whether or not my works have been cited sufficiently (anyone in the academic field knows garnering citations takes many years, and who decides how many citations are "enough"?), or whether they are "notable" by some arbitrary standards discussed above (in any case, my peer-reviewed publications are the output of the work that made me "notable" enough for a BLP), I would argue is of questionable relevance. People and their work evolve, and for the sake of accuracy a BLP should also evolve to reflect that.

Again, I am not suggesting the creation of an exhaustive list. I would suggest something mentioned during the RfC: In the BLP after the mention of the Fodor's chapters, write something to the effect of:

He has also been published in peer-reviewed journals such as The International Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, Pacific Asia Inquiry, The Journal of Pacific Asia Studies, and Asia-Pacific Journal (Japan Focus), and also in academic book chapters published by Akashi Shoten Inc (Tokyo). and Springer.

Simple links can be added to journal titles if it is necessary to source them. Those links can be appropriated from here and here. Again, I'm not suggesting a complete list of publications. But I think if we include other book titles related to my activism, then we should also include published titles as that activism gains a foothold in academia. They are third-party edited published works. Thank you. Arudoudebito (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting these, and sorry for the delay in response. I've asked the people at WikiProject Japan to take a look at this request and the one below. Let's wait a bit to see if anyone wants to help out with writing this, and if not we can then discuss other options later. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I checked the books and verified chapter contributions. The journals all have a similar focus, so instead of listing them all I'd like to suggest the following wording. The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus is mentioned specifically because we have an article about it.
He has also been published in The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus 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) and Springer.
If there's no objection, I'll go ahead and add this to the end of the article. – Margin1522 (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
The WP:CONSENSUS above was not to add them because they were not notable. Oddexit (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Oddexit: If you're talking about the RfC, that was for whether a complete list of publications should be included. That isn't what's being proposed here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
It's unclear how any of these publications are notable. Journalists never wrote about them at all. Reviewers never reviewed them at all. 70% of them were never cited by academics at all and only two or three of them received one to three citations at most. Wikipedia is not supposed to get involved in anything self-serving or promotional per WP:NOTPROMOTION, so it's important to ask: where is the independent third-party coverage that justifies mentioning them? Cwobeel removed them because he said academic publications are seldom mentioned unless they're notable. Fraulein451 agreed that they didn't belong because they're not notable. Rosalthe agreed that they didn't belong unless they had more than a couple of citations because they weren't notable. And Anne Delong agreed that only "select" and "notable" publications belonged in that section. I agree with them that they're not notable (yet). It's one thing to cite op-ed pieces by independent third parties specifically discussing Debito Arudou or journalists / academics writing specifically about Debito Arudou in publications with editorial control because that's standard procedure in writing a neutral Wikipedia article. Just doing something because the subject wants us to do it (or removing something because the subject wants it removed) is another matter. Oddexit (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
As Anne Delong said in the RfC, "representative and/or most notable "selected" publications would be better than an exhaustive list". That's what this is. I think he's notable mainly as an activist, so this is justifiable as showing that his academic publications are the result of his activism. The paragraph with footnotes is in (my sandbox). You can see that from the titles. The Otaru Hot Spring paper gets more than a couple of cites on GS, although this is an accident, since it was selected for other reasons. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Sentence now added to end of article. – Margin1522 (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

A word about conflicts of interest

Hello all. I have been in contact with Debito by email since I blocked the Mister Mtzplk and Sweetandloveable accounts, and one of the things he wanted to know was what Wikipedia's policy was on other editors who might have a conflict of interest regarding this article. He is concerned that people who he has had disputes with about and about his activism are editing this article in order to portray him in a negative light. If these accusations are true, it is a cause for concern. For one thing, this motivation for editing the article is just as much a conflict of interest as Debito's. The most relevant part of the conflict of interest guidelines is this: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. This means that if you have been in a dispute with Debito, you should consider yourself to have a conflict of interest here. Editors with a conflict of interest are encourage to disclose their interest on the talk pages of relevant articles that they edit, and are strongly discouraged from editing the articles themselves. See here and here for more information.

For another thing, editing this article to portray its subject in a negative light goes against the biographies of living persons policy. I quote: Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. One of the express aims of this policy is to avoid Wikipedia from doing damage to the reputation of living people, and Debito mentioned in his email that this article has already had a negative impact on his career. That is not to say that we can't include criticism (or praise), but we need to be very careful about doing so. Another quote from the BLP policy: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.

In case anyone reading this wasn't aware, this article is subject to discretionary sanctions, meaning that the Arbitration Committee has authorised administrators to hand out sanctions including revert restrictions, page bans, and blocks for "edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies". I'll be monitoring the article and this talk page to make sure that all policies and guidelines are being adhered to.

Now, as I have made a point of addressing conflicts of interest, I think it's only fair that I make my own situation clear. As can be gathered from my user page, I am an English teacher living in Hokkaido, Japan. I have also been aware of for a few years, and I was an occasional reader four or five years ago but these days I only read it rarely. I've never left a comment on, and I don't remember ever commenting anywhere else about it either. Furthermore, I hadn't met or interacted with Mr. Arudou (online or off) until our recent email exchange. To the best of my knowledge, I don't have any other conflict of interest regarding either him or his Wikipedia article.

In his email, Debito says that there are still (as-yet unspecified) parts of his article which he is unhappy with. To address this, first I will go through the article and remove any obvious violations of the BLP policy. Then I would like to invite him to comment here about things in his article that he would like to see improved. Of course, these would only be suggestions, and we would be under no obligation to implement them precisely, or even at all. However, all Wikipedians have a duty to ensure that living people aren't harmed because of their Wikipedia biographies, and because Debito has said that this is exactly what has happened to him, I think it is only fair that we ask him what he thinks. We can then see how his suggestions compare with Wikipedia policies, and implement them if they are reasonable. We can also ask for input from outside editors if necessary.

Apologies for the tl;dr, and feel free to ask me if you have questions about any of this. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)'

Wikipedia isn't about what Debito thinks. It's about the facts, and the very fact that Debito has be critcised by the media is relevant enough to mention this. If you want to discuss removing the criticism section, you can at least do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talkcontribs)
Yes, it's about the facts, but we also have a duty to protect the biography subjects from possible harm resulting from their articles. If you haven't read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons yet, you should do so before trying to edit this article. Also, see Wikipedia:Criticism for the established thinking on adding criticism of article subjects. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The criticism section isn't meant to harm Debito's image outright. It's only meant to display some of the controversy that he has received. There are countless people out on Wikipedia that have their own criticism sections on their own pages in the exact same manner. It's not fair to silence criticism just because Debito doesn't want people to speak out against him. In what way does the criticism section violate Wikipedia standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talkcontribs) 01:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You haven't responded back to me. Explain. Why do you think that the criticism section has no place in Wikipedia. How are they not trust worthy sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talkcontribs) 18:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Where have sourced criticisms been removed? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Answering Curly Turkey's question, a lot of reliably sourced information from newspaper publications with third-party editorial control (including the mention of an entire article -- accidentally, I believe) has been removed. I had no problem with most of Cwobeel's suggestions, so I didn't say anything (and no, he's not an administrator). I probably should have said something at the time. John Spiri's Japan Times article about Arudou and his blog entitled "It's just because...foreigners know best: by labeling Japanese liars and condoning a racist blog post, Arudou has gone too far" has been accidentally removed ( It should be mentioned in the article again. Another reliably sourced newspaper article entirely about Arudou entitled "Through the Fire: Gallimard Syndrome" by columnist Brett Fujioka could (and should) be mentioned also to improve this article. ( Those are two articles entirely about Arudou. The other criticism that was removed was by Arudou's own (then) wife in the New York Times and the Washington Post. Both journalists in those mainstream major newspapers thought the commentary on Arudou was important enough for readers to know about. If it's good enough for the New York Times and the Washington Post with their heavy third party editorial control, it should be (and is) good enough for Wikipedia. Oddexit (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
FYI, criticism section was removed by admin Cwobeel in October for the following reasons:
I have merged the "Criticism" section into the Protests section (Criticism sections are POV magnets), after cleaning up a number of cherry-picked quotes replacing these with the lead sentences on the sources used referring to the subject. Also removed a sentence which was cherry picked for effect and basically a WP:COATRACK. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Source:(Page down to bottom of Discussion section.) Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 01:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that his criticism is still list, but why would it be placed in the other protests section rather than it's own section. It clearly doesn't feel in place for the criticism to be placed in a section that doesn't fit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talkcontribs) 18:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving this BLP (4): Removal/amendment of inaccurate Talk Page tag.

Happy 2015, WP Editors, and thank you for all of your attention and improvements to this BLP. I really appreciate it.

My next suggestion is a small one, and it may be just an issue of the wording of a formatted tag, which says above on this Talk Page:

A Wikipedia contributor, Arudoudebito (talk · contribs), has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. This user's editing has included contributions to this article. Relevant guidelines include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

This isn't accurate. I have not contributed to this article. I have not changed the content within the article (please check my contribution record). I have only contributed comments to this Talk Page.

Can the wording saying I contributed to the article be removed? Thank you very much, and Happy New Year. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 21:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think adding one tag to the article, as you did here, is enough. I'm going to remove the editedhere parameter. —C.Fred (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
The notation and wording is/was accurate. Please have a look at the following: Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 14:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 14:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Good point: Even if that account hasn't edited this page, the sockpuppet investigation results show that it's likely that user has edited the page. I've restored the editedhere= parameter as a result, with a comment expanding on the matter further. —C.Fred (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but the investigation was incorrect. As I said before, I have not contributed to the article. Please revert. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 23:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest you contact either Mr. Stradivarius or DeltaQuad on their talk pages, since they are the two people who handled the sockpuppet investigations. —C.Fred (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I can't say too much as there is private/personal information involved, but all signs point towards the problem being meatpuppetry, not sockpuppetry. The on-wiki evidence certainly suggests this: the technical evidence was a "likely" match rather than an exact one, and the accounts involved all had unique communication styles. The most plausible explanation is that Debito did not make the edits himself. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving this BLP (5): Clarifying the use of as a reliable source

My thanks to WP Editors for their assistance with improving this BLP. My next suggestion concerns sourcing for this WP.

There has been a long debate about whether this BLP should be citing (or articles/sources published elsewhere archived at as a credible source. It was even ( repeatedly noted as a reason for nominating this BLP for deletion back in 2008).

I think this debate should be resolved, because it has been a reason for negative editing of the subject. That is to say: If an edit was positively predisposed towards the subject of the BLP, then claiming in essence inter alia that “it’s from, not an actual third-party edited source” has been grounds for deletion of the edit (examples here and here).

However, if an edit has been negative, even though I have been the only editor of the source, then the edit has been kept (examples here and here, scroll down to section 2.2.1).

My request is that the double standard be resolved. Either accept as a reliable source and include information and links to it as source material for this BLP, or don’t and remove all references "self-published" by within the body of this article. (If that means much of the personal history that only I have "self-published" under WP guidelines must go, then so be it. Not clear if much of that information belongs in an encyclopedic article in the first place.)

If this should be resolved by the larger WP community through an RfC, I am fine with that too (please tell me how I can start proceedings). But we’ve been debating this since at least 2008. Let’s settle it. Thank you. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 21:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@Arudoudebito: The Wikipedia policy about citing material to websites of article subjects is actually quite well-developed; you can read it at WP:ABOUTSELF. If there has been debate over whether should be regarded as "reliable" or not, then it's due to a lack of familiarity with policy, not a lack of policy itself. The policy says that we may use your website to cite statements in this article, but only under the following conditions:
  • The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
  • It does not involve claims about third parties.
  • It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source.
  • There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
  • The article is not based primarily on such sources.
If there is material like this in the article that is sourced to, then it should be either backed up by a reliable secondary source, or the material should be removed. I'll have a quick look now to see if I can spot any. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for improving this BLP (2): Other Protests section

Hello WP editors. Here is my next suggestion for an edit:

Under subject line "Other Protests" at the BLP, there is too much focus on the campaigns I have been involved in that incurred flak or could be portrayed as unsuccessful (because there was more TV than newspaper coverage, alas -- harder to cite later for WP). However, there were other campaigns I was involved in or led that were successful from a newspaper archive point of view.

For example, the 1996 on-air gaffe by national news anchorman Kume Hiroshi ("It's better if gaijin [sic] speak broken Japanese."), which was covered both in the Chicago Sunday Tribune and the Daily Yomiuri at the time, and for which he apologized for a decade later. This apology was covered in the Asahi Shimbun on December 21 2006, in Japanese. It is archived here, with a synopsis in English for your reference here. The background to the case is archived here, with archived reference to those Tribune and Yomiuri articles.

These sources are from full-text newspaper articles with original links to sources, so they should satisfy WP rules. Please add this campaign too. Thank you. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito 09:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@Arudoudebito: It looks like we haven't had much luck with getting people to write material on the Kume Hiroshi story. However, given the coverage that it received, it does seem like it would be a good idea to mention it in the article. How about writing a section on it yourself? If you post it here on the talk page, rather than adding it to the article directly, that will allow other editors to review it before it is put in the article, thereby avoiding COI problems. (We even have a template for doing that.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Requesting return of Criticism section

I don't see how the criticism section and the sources that it includes aren't credible. I'm requesting for it to be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talkcontribs) 17:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Graylandertagger: as noted a few sections up by Mr. Stradivarius, WP:Criticism is an essay that summarizes the established thinking on "criticism of..." sections and articles pretty well. In short, the best way to manage reliably sourced, significant critical coverage is to integrate the content into the rest of the article, in the appropriate topical sections. Since this is a WP:BLP, we need to be particularly cautious that any contentious content we add represents due coverage. Adding a "Criticism" section is almost never the best option in a BLP.
Now, since my only relevant action in the article has been to revert the addition of a section header, I do not know which sources or article content you are referring. What specific content do you propose adding to the article? VQuakr (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
There is quite a lot of reliably sourced coverage from independent third parties publishing in newspapers with editorial control about Debito Arudou. Readers have every right to be well-informed about what these reliable sources are saying about the subject. As it stands, some sourced, cited opinions of reliable sources have been removed (accidentally, I believe). They (and other newer reliably sourced opinions about Arudou) should be included to balance the article. Even the current quotations about Arudou from NPR, Washington Post, New York Times, Asahi Shimbun, etc., exhibit cherry-picked quotes that ignore the balancing criticisms of the subject in the very same articles. It's a disservice to the reader to pretend that these and other reliably sourced opinions about Arudou don't exist. Here's a sample [1]. There are more. Oddexit (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

In that case what qualifies to allow a criticism section to be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talkcontribs) 18:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you already have an answer above - that there is not going to be a separate "criticism" section in the article, but there is room for improvement in balanced coverage of the subject throughout. VQuakr (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@Oddexit: in the diff you linked above, I see [2] and [3]. The latter, by Fujioka, seems more polemic and should, in my opinion, be used with caution if at all. You reference a few other sources, in general terms, above and in the diff you linked. Are there any you would like to add directly to this section for reference? VQuakr (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Can we include Debito's wiki activity in this BLP?

Hello everyone,

I'm just curious about this, but there have been a few cases of sockpuppetry

and a few COI-issue edits by Debito:

Can these sorts of things be referenced and included in the BLP itself? I'm not suggesting that we actually do this, I'm just curious as to what wikipedia's policies allow in these sorts of cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemicalG (talkcontribs) 11:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

@ChemicalG: Mentioning Wikipedia in articles falls under the same rules as any other kind of article content. It can be added if it satisfies verifiability, neutral point of view, no original research and any other applicable Wikipedia content policies. (For this article the biography of living persons policy, especially the WP:BLPGOSSIP section, is particularly important.) I don't think anything to do with possible COI or sockpuppetry on Wikipedia has been reported in news articles published by reputable news agencies, or other sources that count as reliable on Wikipedia, and if there are no reliable sources to back up the information then it definitely can't go in the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see your point. I'll have a closer look at these policies. I was just curious as to what can and can't be included in accordance with wikipedia's policies. ChemicalG (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Another wikipedia policy question about this article. What is the wikipedia policy on naming spouses that are not-notable in the their own right on a BLP? Is there an expectation of privacy, unless the spouse has identified themselves in a public source? The previous spouse is listed here, but not current spouse. Browny Cow (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving this BLP (6): accuracy of the "known for" parameter.


Just a suggestion here, but is Debito really known for "human rights activism"? Other than a lawsuit, and a handful of (relatively unknown in the mainstream Japanese media) protests - I cannot think of anything else that would be "human rights activism". Should we not consider changing the "known for" parameter to "", or "blogging" which is what he is really known for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemicalG (talkcontribs) 06:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, the activism dates to some years ago, so maybe "former activist". Blogging as a naturalized Japanese seems to be his main 'known for' now. He's not really notable as an author, columnist, or academic.Browny Cow (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Who are "ChemicalG" and "Browny Cow"? They both seem to be accounts created to comment on Debito's talk page. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a chemical engineer, and relatively new Wikipedia user based in Japan - and I have no idea who "Browny Cow" is. Does that make my question less relevant? ChemicalG (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Not necessarily, but it's extremely unusual to see two new accounts created at almost the same time both espusing the same opinion on the same page. You can understand why that would look suspicious, can't you? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

not really, we are in no way connected and this is an open medium. I have no idea who "Browny Cow" is.

Also this distracts from the original issue.ChemicalG (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

User:ChemicalG: On the substance, you are probably right. But per WP:NOR, WP:BLP and maybe a few others, we aren't actually allowed point that out in the article unless it's been stated in numerous reliable third party sources. In theory, we are allowed describe people the way they choose to describe themselves, even if this clashes with WP:NPOV. This is why, in theory, articles on individuals who aren't notable enough to have been covered in a broad range of reliable third party sources (enough to discuss them objectively)≠ are supposed to be deleted. This is how I interpret WP:GNG, but unfortunately a lot of others take it to mean "if the subject is mentioned in reliable sources, and especially if I've heard of them, we can't delete the article". There have been rare exceptions like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banned from the Bible and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuell Benta, but ... Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The Otaru Onsens "Japanese Only" sign should not be removed. Please replace.

Dear WP Editors, The recent edit made by Hijiri88 (COI) removing the historical record of the Japanese Only sign displayed on this BLP since 2005 now should not be allowed to stand. The argument made by editor, "A photo of a sign with the words "Japanese Only", with the curious (and likely counterfactual) caption "The original sign", doesn't really add anything to this article on Debito Arudou, especially when we don't even have a photo of the subject himself." is wrong on at least two counts:

  1. It is not counterfactual. It was the original sign, and there are at least two books and dozens of newspaper articles substantiating that (one book source here).
  2. It does add to this article. Deleting it is like saying that the BLP on Rosa Parks should not have a picture of the bus she protested against. (It does.)

The sign is a matter of historical record, and it is fundamentally connected to the notability undergirding this BLP. Undo the edit and replace it please. (And if you want a photo of me for the BLP too, let me know and I'll send one free of copyright.) Thank you. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 02:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  1. I don't have a "COI". I looked at this article objectively and considered how I could improve it. You posted your personal opinion of Donald Keene to our article on him, an article on my favourite scholar that I had edited in the past but ironically only noticed because of a BLPN post (I was on that board for other reasons). (You will also note that, on my last visit to BLPN, I actually took your side in the discussion of whether the "criticism" section on this article should be removed. I also recently re-added you to our list of JT contributors. And in the section above I reiterated my opinion that this article is by necessity indefinitely broken. I have taken similar stances on other biographical articles on people with whom I have even less connection than this one. None of this is because I "like" or "dislike" you as a person -- I don't have a "COI" -- but because I have been consistently following WP policies and guidelines on all of these issues.) When I checked the talk page for the Donald Keene article I saw User:Eido.inoue had said you had been "attempting to pad [your] own wikipedia BLP with numerous self-written material". I thus stopped by here and, while I didn't find any such material, I did notice that...
  2. This is a biographical article, so if there is only one image it should probably be a depiction of the subject himself. Even our articles on Bahá'u'lláh and Muhammad go out of their way to provide such images. Until any such is added to the article, any images of things other than the subject hurt the article by providing WP:UNDUE weight to whatever is depicted in the images.
  3. If you are willing to provide a photo of yourself, by all means please do!
  4. I'm also a bit concerned that including photographs of discriminatory signs and/or materials like the magazine cover as our subject sees them without full disclosure of the background and/or the other side of the story might violate WP:NPOV. So even with a good photo depicting our subject added to the article, I'm still not convinced the sign should be re-added. If we're going to disagree on this point then we should probably leave it to others.
  5. Your Rosa Parks analogy is inappropriate, since our article on her already contains six photographs depicting her or depicting commemorative images of her, and only two photos depicting the bus. (This entirely aside from the fact that your comparing yourself to Rosa Parks is downright offensive on numerous levels in that (a) it makes light of the plight of African Americans in Jim Crow-era Alabama by equating it to he plight of a white person in Japan, (b) unless I'm mistaken you, unlike Parks, weren't arrested following the incident, (c) it equates "the Japanese" with Jim Crow-era Alabaman whites...)
  6. Please read my edit summary more carefully. "Counterfactual" here means that it could easily be interpreted by anyone not already familiar with your biography to mean that the sign depicted was the first "Japanese Only" sign to exist, and other establishments with such signs were acting in imitation of this one. Assuming the above condition is met, if/when the photo is re-added the caption should be something like "The Yunohana Onsen sign as it originally appeared".
  7. Can I take your protest at the removal of the onsen sign photo and only the onsen sign photo as tacit approval of my other removal? I gave a copyright-based reasoning in my edit summary, but the above rationale applies as well, probably even more so.
  8. Largely as an aside, could I please ask you to stop referring to this page as "this BLP" unless it is necessary? WP:BLP is one of our most serious policies, and when you use "this BLP" as a synonym for "this article" it implies you are attempting to silence other parties' open discussion of the content. BLP concerns the addition of questionable/unsourced material to biographical articles, and what I did was remove two images because I thought they unbalanced the article. I notice your recent edits to our Donald Keene and Yoshirō Mori articles did not at any time refer to those articles as "this BLP" even though (unlike here) the issue under discussion was exactly the adding of poorly-sourced negative material to biographies of living persons. WP:BLP can't by itself be used to justify re-adding material that has been removed as questionable.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 04:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Here is a picture of me that you can use for this BLP. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 06:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution, Dr. Arudou. Now per my 4th point above, I'd like to see what other users think of re-adding the sign. Are you familiar with WP:RFC? I don't know how many active users are watching this page. Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a NPOV problem with including the sign photo and have re-added it with a different caption - based on your suggestion above - that should take care of the "counterfactual" concern (which seemed a bit far-fetched to me anyway, but some extra clarity can't hurt). Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Debito, please refrain from comparing the situation of white people in Japan to the situation of African Americans in the Jim Crow era Southern states. It is extremely inappropriate, factually wrong and offensive. ChemicalG (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC) as a source for the details of his divorce?

I'm a bit concerned that, since Dr. Arudou's ex-wife is named in the article, WP:BLP applies to our discussion of how her marriage of 19 years came to an end. It's not a big problem, but "it was initiated by the husband, and the process took over two years" is a bit too detailed for something that can only be sourced to a self-published primary source. Anyone have a problem with me cutting

Arudou petitioned the Japanese Family Court for a divorce in the spring of 2004, which was granted through court mediation in September 2006.

down to

The couple divorced in 2006.

...The sentence immediately above it is also a little concerning, since (without clarification of later events? Sorry, I'm not familiar...), it implies that our subject's legal name is still "菅原 有道出人".

Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting question. The New York Times and the Washington Post (both reliable mainstream sources) wrote articles on Debito Arudou. Both mainstream newspapers thought it was important to not only mention Arudou's (then) wife by name (Ayako Sugawara) but also her opinions. Those newspaper articles are already cited in the article, and are part of the reason why this Wikipedia article survived a nomination for deletion several years ago. The name "Ayako Sugawara" is now sort of immortalized in those mainstream newspapers online, plus the Japanese-language newspaper coverage. Regarding the divorce, I checked WP:PUBLICFIGURE and citing the divorce in the article is basically standard practice even if the source is the subject's website. True: theoretically there could be something dubious or unduly self-serving by adding that Arudou initiated the divorce. However, is there any reason to believe (and I'm just asking) that Debito Arudou might not have initiated it per the criteria of WP:SELFPUB, and therefore it would require a reliable secondary source? It doesn't seem like a controversial assertion to me, just a statement of fact. Oddexit (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

East-West Center Affiliate Scholar Program

The article states in the lead that Debito Arudou is currently an Affiliate Scholar at the East-West Center, linking to an editorial statement by the Japan Times in February 2012. That was three years ago.

According to East-West Center,[4] "The East-West Center’s Affiliate Scholar program provides a limited number of opportunities for graduate students from universities and institutions world-wide, to have a short-term affiliation with the Center while working on a thesis or dissertation research related to the Asia Pacific region...The Affiliate Scholar Program invites applicants who are able to provide their own funding, which includes but is not limited to travel, living expenses and health insurance. The Affiliate Scholar Program is short-term in nature, with visa sponsorship ranging from one month to a maximum of one year. Affiliate Scholars pay a program administration fee of US $40 per month of award."

Three issues. (1) Debito Arudou is no longer a graduate student working on a dissertation at the East-West Center, so it's unclear why this short-term affiliation is written in the present tense. (2) Is a short-term affiliation not mentioned anywhere else in the article an important aspect of Debito Arudou's life? The affiliation -- past or present -- should not be in the lead at all per WP:LEAD, which states "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." (3) With the exception of that small editorial mention in the Japan Times, no independent third party seems to think that the graduate studies affiliation is newsworthy. In other words, it seems to be just that one editorial mention. Should the mention be moved out of the lead to the body text somewhere or just deleted completely? Oddexit (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I have not been an Affiliate Scholar at the East-West Center for some time now, so changing it to past tense is not problematic. However, deleting my history with the East-West Center completely is another issue entirely.
Moreover, this discussion should not be initiated by Oddexit. Given the egregious history of COI this editor in particular has in relation to this BLP (resulting in a successful request for mediation last October), I think she should never come near this particular BLP again. She is, remember, the editor who even tried to consign the Ph.D. I received last year to "Early Life"!. Kindly take your editing skills somewhere else. Because every time you pop up and try to recorrupt this BLP with bias, I will also drop in to remind everyone of your history of bad-faith editing. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 00:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Right, this is what I thought. It should be in the past tense. Thanks for clarifying that. As for where it belongs, WP:LEAD is not the appropriate place for it. I'd like to hear if others have any suggestions on where (or if) it could be mentioned. Oddexit (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure Arudoudebito's "request for mediation" [sic: RFAR] should be labeled a "success", given that a unanimous 10 out of 10 editors declined to hear it and the two main editors that Arudoudebito referenced as examples supporting his position and arguments were judged by non-involved third party Wikipedia admins to be likely sockpuppets/meatpuppets of Arudoudebito based on technical and forensic evidence. Eido INOUE | 井上エイド 04:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
As opposed to the meatpuppetry that happens because people on dedicated stalker sites encourage each other to edit with single-purpose accounts? (source source source source) Harder to label as meatpuppetry, but it's the same result — except that it gives advantage to the enemies (who apparently have no COI) as opposed to friends (who are automatically assumed to have COI simply because they're friends).
Eido Inoue himself has certainly been cited as part of the problem of biased edits, with clear and present COI. (source: Section 2.2), so it's not surprising he's the one making this case.
Anyway, the request for mediation I cited at the link above (the first time was because I didn't know proper WP procedure at the time, so admins set me straight; the link is to the second time, the one that counts) was indeed successful. This BLP has since been cleaned up significantly, and remains under Discretionary Sanctions, with admins (thank you all very much) actively keeping an eye out. This is why biased editors like the two commenting here now no longer have the free reign they have had for more than a decade over this BLP in violation of WP rules. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 20:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Can the stick be dropped and the person beating a dead horse back slowly away from the carcass, please? I'd like to get back to discussing in a civil and productive way what to do about the Associate Scholar mention in the lead. To his credit, Arudoudebito has already acknowledged it's incorrect as worded, so it needs an edit one way or the other. Reading WP:LEAD, it's also clear that it does not belong there. It's nowhere else in the article, and (more importantly) it's not a notable part of the subject's life by Wikipedia notability standards to be put in the lead. The question is where to put it, if at all, and how to word it. Also, is there any up-to-date reliable sources that can be used? If not, maybe @Curly Turkey: who's edited this article and has experience writing leads can offer a suggestion on where to place it (if at all)? Oddexit (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, God, am I being dragged into this? The lead is totally inadequate—a lead is a summary of the contents of an article, and the lead as it stands does a piss-poor job of that. As a summary, it should only contain information that is already in the body, which is why citations are not required in the lead. The East-West Centre isn't even mentioned in the body. So we have three problems: (a) we have material in the lead that is not in the body; (b) the lead totally fails at summing up the body; (c) there is the possibility that the East-West Centre thing may be UNDUE at the scope of the lead.
I'd take a stab at the lead, but I don't know how balanced or comprehensive the body is, so it would be difficult to judge what was really appropriate at the scope of the lead. My knowledge of Debito is limited to having read a less than a dozen of his articles and the Otaru Onsen book (all primary sources) so I'm not really in a position to judge, and I'm not interested enough in the topic to hunt down the appropriate sources (I have pop culture trash to tend to). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I totally agree that the lead is inadequate, but having watched people fight over the lead in other articles, I didn't want to raise the subject of that headache as long as possible. A lot of people have stated in the past that they're not interested in this BLP when commenting in the talk archives, so there seems to be little interest in doing a lot of hard work and research on the subject matter. Oh well. I've done my fair share and I'm proud of my hard work on it so far. It seems to me we have two options, either 1) reword it and move it somewhere in the article or 2) move it to the talk page until there's a WP:CONSENSUS on where (if at all) it should be put in the article. Would people like to voice a preference? Oddexit (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, moving the East-West Centre thing to the body cannot be controversial—it's a requirement, and the source passes the RS test. Given it's the only source that even mentions it, and only mentions it outside the body of the cited article, I'd call it undue to put it in the lead. Is the East-West Centre currently Debito's primary place of employment? If that's the case, and an RS can be found stating so, then it may warrant inclusion in the lead. Honestly, most leads are not hard to write if you know what you're doing, assuming there isn't politics involved. It's a matter of summarizing the body, a skill we should all have learned in school. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
As Arudoudebito mentioned above, he's no longer affiliated with the East-West Center, which makes sense because it was only a short-term / temporary host affiliation while working on a thesis. The citation is three years old. The second issue is that it does not seem to be "employment" in the strict sense of being paid by the East-West Center for services rendered. According to their website, the East-West Center does not seem to pay doctoral students to use their university libraries at all. "The Affiliate Scholar Program invites applicants who are able to provide their own funding, which includes but is not limited to travel, living expenses and health insurance. The Affiliate Scholar Program is short-term in nature, with visa sponsorship ranging from one month to a maximum of one year. Affiliate Scholars pay a program administration fee of US $40 per month of award."[5] I haven't found any reliable sources discussing it or mentioning it, unlike when he worked as an EFL instructor in Hokkaido. There are multiple references for that employment in newspapers. Oddexit (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I get the feeling that sourcing will continue to be an issue with this article, and that the article will remain rather piecemeal, unblanced, and uncomprehensive until someone writes a proper bio on him. I don't like this kind of article—notability is established, but the comprehensiveness of RSes is severely lacking—there's much danger of WP:SYNTHESIS. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The usual solution in this kind of situation is an "as of", e.g. "As of 2012, Arudou was an Affiliate Scholar at the East-West Center." We even have a template for it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I changed the template, but it still looks strange. "As of" implies "henceforth," "as of this date moving forward", "from this time until today", etc., when we already know he's not affiliated with the Center anymore. Oddexit (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Arudou's resume being used as a source?

I removed it, and somebody restored it. How can the guy's online resume seriously be used to source content in the article? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any policy or guideline based reason for objecting? WP:SELFPUB is the relevant portion of WP:RS. What year a particular job ended seems noncontentious in the extreme. VQuakr (talk) 07:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
It brings up issues of notability and weight. Why is it even being mentioned? Because the subject himself thinks it's notable? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
The employment itself was discussed in a secondary source, as mentioned in the discussion above. All that we are using the CV for is the year that employment ended. VQuakr (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't it make sense to add the first reliable source, then? It's not there now.Oddexit (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, I didn't think it was a violation of WP:SELFPUB, either. But a one-year non-paid affiliation that no independent third party wrote about, definitely didn't belong in the WP:LEAD. Oddexit (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Oops, yes looks like it got dropped out at some point. I just added it back here. AFAIK no one is proposing moving this sentence back to the lede. VQuakr (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, it remains a concern just how much this article relies on primary and self-published sources. Take a look at the list of references. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


Question 1:
"he changed his name to Debito Arudou. To allow his wife and children to retain their Japanese family name, he adopted the legal name Arudoudebito Sugawara"
Okay, so does this mean he had his name legally changed to Debito Arudou, and then had Sugawara legally appended to it? Or is the first statement merely redundant? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Question 2:
"To allow his wife and children to retain their Japanese family name, he adopted the legal name Arudoudebito Sugawara"
Did this happen before or after naturalization? If after, then I assume the children's names weren't changed. Clarification please? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I know what happened, obviously. But am I allowed to tell you without violating WP:OR? Probably the only source(s) you're going to find will be something I wrote, and I don't know how you'll resolve that under WP:SELFPUB. That's why this BLP is such an Augean stable -- so many WP rules have been bent over the years to shoehorn in wrongly-sourced and gossipy factoids like these. Thank you for trying to clean things up. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 23:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm just trying to copyedit, but I can't "fix" certain things unless I'm sure they're broken. I'd like to just reword the first to something like "changed his name to Debitoarudou Sugawara, combining a Japanese version of his birth name with his wife's surname" or something and leave it at that, without the confusing explanations. Have you had more than one name change? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes. From David Christopher Schofill at birth to David Christopher Aldwinckle at adoption to Sugawara Arudoudebito at naturalization to Arudou Debito after divorce, All legal changes. (NB: My first name was never Debitoarudou as you rendered). Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 23:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Got it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)