Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:05, 1 April 2015

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Japan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 20:25, January 8, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Arudoudebito (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Speedy Keep, January 27, 2015, see discussion. Keep, February 2 2008, see discussion.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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, "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" 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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." 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 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)

Notable person? Relevance?

I don't think that it merits having such a detailed wikipedia on someone who isn't so notable. Here are a few facts: - His academic works are not really notable because they are not cited frequently by other academics in peer reviewed articles (which you can see on Lexisnexis) - The total circulation of the Japan Times is about 70,000 according to their own numbers (which is actually about the same as the local "Advertiser" magazine in my hometown...) - There are numerous other contributors to the Japan Times, most of whom do not have their own wikipedia article, - He is largely unknown outside of Japan, - The books he has published are hardly notable, - The "FRANCA" group is defunct.

On the other hand, Debito has: - A history with the Otaru Onsen case, - Maintained a blog for a long period of time,

I would argue that other than the Otaru Onsen case, there is very little that is truly "notable" about Debito.

Also, I understand why Debito would bring up issues on "neutral point of view" for the previous versions of this page.

I understand that there are polarizing views about Debito, which is probably why this page has had so much activity.

If we look at the German, Japanese, Chinese and Korean versions of the page, they are extremely simple.

I think that putting undue weight on an issue, particularly a biography of a living person is not warranted. Therefore, I would like to suggest an overhaul of this page to greatly simplify it, even the "Simple English" version of the page would probably be fairer than what we currently have, in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemicalG (talk • contribs) 00:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The simple English Misplaced Pages article on this subject is four sentences long. It is unlikely that you will gain consensus for permanently reducing this article to four sentences, if that is what you are proposing. What specific, actionable improvements to the article do you propose? VQuakr (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

We could start by stripping out everything that's sourced to primary sources—sources by Arudou himself account for nearly half of all the citations. Yes, there are provisions that allow for primary sources in certain cases (confirming birthdates, etc). This article has crossed way over the line. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that, with the exception of biographical information in the "Early life and education" "Background" section which often uses the subject's own website on Misplaced Pages per WP:SELFPUB, we can get rid of a lot of the citations by Debito Arudou himself and replace them with what independent third parties published in reliable sources by journalists and academics have to say about the subject. If it isn't discussed in those publications, it shouldn't be in the article. That's Misplaced Pages policy. I tried to explain this to the two editors which have now been banned for sock/meatpuppetry and to Arudoudebito multiple times. Oddexit (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, then, go ahead and do it—you've got a consensus and policy onyour side. If anyone opposes, we'll open an RfC, and that'll put an end to this stuff. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Here are the list of footnotes that can either be replaced by independent third party sources or deleted entirely because they're not policy compliant. Footnotes 21, 22, and 23 can be replaced by independent third party sources. You don't need Arudou's book for them. And if journalists didn't cover it, it doesn't belong in the article. Footnote 29 should not be in the article at all, including the sentence, unless a journalist covered it. Footnotes 33 and 34 have absolutely nothing to do with Debito Arudou. He's not even mentioned in those two articles, let alone support the assertion that it was "Arudou's demonstration." The only reason it's there, I suspect, is because you can see Arudou's face in one of the photographs. That's an example of a WP:SYNTHESIS violation. Footnote 45 can be deleted, as well as footnote 49 (they're unnecessary). And as for the rest of the superfluous footnotes 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, and 58 -- they should all be deleted along with their sentences. Journalists, academics, and book reviewers NEVER covered this work. They rarely (if ever) cited it. And it never won any awards. In fact, the consensus at the RfC said no to it all. But it was put in the article anyway because Arudoudebito wanted it mentioned. Oddexit (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Arudoudebito obviously doesn't get to choose. He's already got his own website where he can say what he likes about himself. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not choosing. I never have chosen, and Oddexit's misrepresentation of the record of discussion here on the Talk Page about my suggestions for edits (at the invitation of WP admin) is once again symptomatic of how she misrepresents the sources (as she has constantly and confirmably here). For heaven's sake, people, don't let Oddexit edit, or even be involved in the process of editing, this BLP anymore. I have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of her bad-faith editing, and what goes up here that is interpreted in a one-sided negative, even counterfactual manner, has a profound effect upon my life. Remember that you're dealing with a real live person here, and now that we've finally cleaned up many of her underhanded edits after more than a decade of them affecting me, we're about to allow her to do it again. Please don't. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 22:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't know anything about OddExit, but if there are COI concerns then the work should be left to someone else. The work needs to be done, though—the number and proportion of primary sources is overkill, and many (most?) are not justified. No, I'm not volunteering to do it—I've had my fill of contributing to politically-tinged articles after making the stupid mistake of trying to copyedit Charlie Hebdo shooting. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I have stayed quiet on Arudoudebito's multiple "attempted outings" (and attempted is all they are) for a long time, which really need to stop because they're a form of WP:HARASSMENT and would have resulted in a block per WP:PRIVACY had it been any other user. My understanding is that he gets a little extra latitude because he's the subject of this article. That said, his speculations about me are wrong. I've never written about Arudoudebito. I've never posted on his blog (as far as I know). I don't post on other sites criticizing him. and I'm not in any dispute with Arudoudebito. I contribute to Misplaced Pages because I read the subject matter and wanted to write a good article. Full stop. And no, I am not about to post my private information up on Misplaced Pages contrary to Misplaced Pages policy, so that I can be stalked or have my privacy invaded. Given his obsession with finding out who people are so he can WP:OWN this article is a little scary. Beyond his speculation and fishing, however, Arudoudebito has no reason to accuse me of WP:COI. Misplaced Pages policy is to ignore the personal attacks as long as possible and focus on the content. I continue to do this. Unfortunately any attempt to have a civil and constructive discussion is sidelined by accusations of WP:COI, WP:CRYBLP, and beating a dead horse with old accusations at every turn. When that doesn't work, he argues that the high-quality journalist or academic sources about him are just misquoting him (as if it's Misplaced Pages's job to re-write the article to how the subject would have liked the independent third party sources to have read, too). Why don't more people edit this article? I suspect because it's a hassle. Nihonjoe calls Arudodebito's behavior on Misplaced Pages "obnoxious and annoying." I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd like us to just get back to editing the article in a policy compliant, constructive, and collaborative way based on civil discussions about reliable sources. The objective is to improve the article based on Misplaced Pages policies, not make it someone's WP:SOAPBOX so they can "retool" for job interviews. If Arudoudebito has policy-based arguments for why the article should quote his articles instead of independent third party sources, I for one would like to read what those arguments are. Now, can we please get back to focusing on the content, and not on the contributors?. Oddexit (talk) 00:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps an RfC would be best. We could call for input from WP:JAPAN and from WP:BIOGRAPHY. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

And ask what? "Do you think it's appropriate that 50% of the citations in this BLP come from Debito Arudou's own primary writings?" Oddexit (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course not. An RfC would determine how much is appropriate, and whether the sources are appropriately used. There is no magic number. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

And whose responsibility is that? Nobody has edited this BLP more than Oddexit has. 13.95% of all edits have been Oddexit's, as has 17.0% of all added text. If there is any issue with the page or how it has been sourced, it is Oddexit's, so she should not pretend to be an innocent bystander now. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 01:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not add any of these citations, Arudoudebito. They were added at either your request or by your (now blocked) meatpuppets. I certainly didn't add the footnotes that are being discussed above because I've always tried to add independent reliable sources for everything outside the Background section, where WP:SELFPUB allows them per policy. Oddexit (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

So the "50% of citations in this BLP" that you cited above as problematic came at my behest or from my alleged minions? They must have been very busy, and over a very short time compared to the many years you have been editing this BLP. However, the record demonstrates that this is clearly false. Own up, Oddexit. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 02:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, just to be clear and repeat myself for your benefit, I didn't add the citations that we are discussing above here. You seem to be confused. Oddexit (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I will not stay quiet on this, and neither has Oddexit in the past (yet another misrepresentation of the record). As noted above, I have demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Oddexit's edits have been biased towards the negative, counterfactual, and, as demonstrated by the record both within the BLP and on this Talk Page, damaging towards my life and career (which is why this BLP is under closer moderation). Nothing I will ever do here or elsewhere will have the same alleged effect on her life as her edits have on mine, and her accusing me of harassing her is ironic in the extreme. Stop claiming victimhood, and kindly leave the editing of and discussion about this BLP to others. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 01:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Debito, one of the reasons this article is user closer moderation is because of your sock/meatpuppets. As for this wiki article damaging your life and "career", as others have been pointing out this article suffers from a distinct lack of NPOV, but decidedly in your favor. It has become little more than a summation of your blog and LinkedIn resume. So, given that the primary source for this article is your own writings, if people read this article and come away with a negative impression of you, whose fault is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.56.72.39 (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Ahistorical (source, source) and incorrect. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 22:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

My concern is the weight put on primary sources in this article. I was hoping a well-worded RfC could weed out what's appropriate and what's not. Right now it's clear that much of the info in the article shouldn't be there based on well-established WP policies. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. But that's what I'm asking: How would you propose wording the question? Oddexit (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, lemme think on it. I don't think it's merely an issue of the number of primary sources used, and I don't want a wording htta could be construed that way. This article has a lot of issues, some of which may not be fixable. I've been thinking about a couple of things, though. For instance, the subject's marriage—the details and circumstances of his getting married & having kids may be easy to source, for instance, but if the only source for his divorce is a primary one, then we have a conundrum. Leaving out the divorce leaves the impression that he's still married—that would justify using a primary source to dispell that idea, but then we have to be very careful (considering weight and POV) with how to apply it. My at-the-moment thinking is to use the primary source to source the bare fact that he divorced in such-and-such a year and leave it at that—or maybe even just say he was married from YEAR to YEAR. Then we have another problem: how many such details do we include in the article? The same argument could be made for many details, and then we could end up populating the article with facts from primary sources. And maybe that's even okay. But I think we need a number of neutral editors willing to contribute their time to examining the evidence. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I would keep it fact based and relevant. All the irrelevant information about his personal life, background, education, and other things which are not really notable such as most of the "publications" section should be removed. I don't think his divorce is worth mentioning, nor is stating his ex-wife's name fair. I know there are very polarizing views on this individual, and keeping it very simple and fact based, and neutral would be the most fair thing to do, I think.

I would keep it to something like this:

"Arudou was born in California in 1965, and came to Japan in 1987. He became a permanent resident in 1996, and later became a citizen of Japan in 2000, changing his name from "David Aldwinckle" to "Arudou Debito" in the process. Between 1999 and 2001, in order to protest against the "Japanese Only" policies of an Onsen chain in Hokkaido, Debito led a group of multinational group of 17 people to attempt walk-ins to test the firmness of these policies. Arudou returned to Yunohana in October 2000 for a third time as a naturalized Japanese citizen, but again was refused entry. Arudou and two co-plaintiffs, Kenneth Lee Sutherland and Olaf Karthaus, in February 2001 then sued Earth Cure in district court pleading racial discrimination, and the City of Otaru for violation of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, a treaty which Japan ratified in 1996. On November 11, 2002, the Sapporo District Court ordered Earth Cure to pay the plaintiffs ¥1 million each (about US$25,000 in total) in damages. The court stated that "categorically refusing all foreigners constitutes irrational discrimination, exceeds social norms, and amounts to an illegal act."The Sapporo District and High Courts both dismissed Arudou's claim against the city of Otaru for not creating an anti-discrimination ordinance. It stated that "issues such as which measures to take, and how to implement them, are properly left to the discretion of Otaru." The Sapporo High Court upheld these rulings on September 16, 2004,and the Supreme Court of Japan denied review on April 7, 2005."

− − Something like that?

ChemicalG (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Whether it's approriate or not would depend on the quality of the sourcing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

ChemicalG and Oddexit seem to be confused about the norms and sourcing requirements for a list of works, which is outlined at MOS:WORKS. To quote: "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. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet." The list of works needs to be expanded and reformatted, not deleted. The only content that should not be included would be works that are unverifiable. VQuakr (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No confusion. Read the RfC. The WP:Consensus on the matter was clear. Oddexit (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about the body text of the article, not lists of works. Let's keep that to a separate discussion. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

delete? merge?

Hello all,

I believe that Debito is notable only for one event, i.e. the Otaru Onsen case.

Everything else listed in this wiki biography are not really "notable" - there are some cases where his name is mentioned in third party sources, but these are hardly noteworthy events.

His books aren't noteworthy, his career isn't really noteworthy, his blog (whilst well known) isn't really noteworthy either.

I would say that the only "noteworthy" event would be that Otaru Onsen case (which had other plaintiffs as well).

Furthermore, Debito himself was concerned about the criticism he was subjected to on this BLP.

Would it not make sense merging some of the content to an "Otaru Onsen Case" entry, or perhaps deleting this BLP, or simplifying the content to include more relevant, verifiable information? (I know it has been discussed before, but I think some parts warrant further discussion...)

ChemicalG (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The consensus at the previous AfD was very clear. It has been 7 years since then but notability is not temporary so any new nomination should address why you think those previous 15 !votes to keep were incorrect. You may wish to review the guideline on notability because the term "notable" has a specific (and somewhat non-intuitive) meaning here. VQuakr (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed it - other than the Otaru Onsen case, I don't see why the subject of this BLP is "notable". ChemicalG (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's your one !vote. I hope you don't think it's length or frequency gives your !vote any more weight. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:45, 13 March 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Name

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)

Another question

"In 1993, Arudou joined the faculty of Business Administration and Information Science at the Hokkaido Information University, a private university in Ebetsu, Hokkaido, where he taught courses in business English and debate. He was an associate professor until 2011 when he left the university."

Does this mean Arudou was an associate professor from 1993 to 2011, or that he joined the University in 1993 and had become an associate professor by the time he left? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Earlier sources on his blog say he was an assistant professor at some point, not associate professor. So more accurate would be, he joined in 1993, and had risen to the rank of associate professor by the time he left the university in 2011....but we don't really have a link verifying the associate professor either. Not sure how things like this are handled tho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrandTheftVotto (talk • contribs) 13:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviews of publications

I don't know how I missed that these pages had their own Talk page for discussing changes. Anyway, I've made two changes to Debidou's page, both have been immediately reversed by CurlyTalk who first recommended I get a consensus, then he accuses me of... I don't know, bias or something.

Anyway - the first change was to add back in text related to a book review by Kris Kosaka of Arudou's fiction work, In Appropriate. The review appeared in Japan Times. The original text from the review had been taken out by CurlyTalk a few days ago, but it the reference link to the actual review was left in place - still there, actually; I merely put back in text from the review. This edit was immediately reversed by CurlyTalk.

If the consensus is that the bad review is 'inappropriate' (sorry...) then good reviews are also not appropriate, so I removed the glowing reviews for his other works, but left in, for example, the sourced notice that his Otaru onsen book has been included as 'recommended reading' on Japan by Japan's Policy Research Institute. This edit was also immediately revised, stating that I had 'removed citations' - if I did so, it was in error.

In any event: if a bad review is not relevant, than neither is a good review, and Wiki shouldn't be in the business of marketing his books.

I have no intention of starting an edit war here, so could others weigh in please. Thanks.

GrandTheftVotto (talk) 10:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't disagree. Unless the reviews are themselves notable, or there is a variety, then they are probably all UNDUE. I only took out the one bad review because it was dominating that paragraph—more information was given panning the book from a single review than describing it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe someone can offer a suggestion on a shorter sentence that captures the gist of the review that matches the length and gist of the others, then. Everyone so far seems to agree that all three reviews come from reliable sources, are verifiable, and are attributed. If the inclusion criteria for this article becomes line-by-line notability, this is where it gets interesting. Oddexit (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Having a single source offering a good or bad review is the problem in itself, not whether the sources are RSes. The length of the sentence I cut was a particular problem, but cutting it down wouldn7t solve the fundamaental problem: why is this one review worth mentioning? The source establishes the notability of the book, but the review doesn't establish the notability of itself. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I would agree, and think all the reviews etc related to his publications - including the 'recommended reading' note (which isn't sourced that I can see) should all be removed. I think a case could probably be made for removing publications not related to why Wiki thinks Debito is notable - are his English teacher materials, opinion pieces in Japan Times, Fodor 'travel guide' articles and his self-published novella, notable or even relevant? I would also question the 'academic paper' description of a 'paper' published online at The Asia-Pacific Journal; it's nothing more than a self-penned write-up of the Otaru onsen case with no sources other than a link to his blog and advertisements for his books. GrandTheftVotto (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    • This is why what you're suggesting gets interesting, Curley Turkey. If it all comes down to multiple independent reliable sources covering someone's activities to establish what gets mentioned in this article and what doesn't (for consistency and fairness), then there is a lot about this subject outside of his activism that is technically not "notable." Incidentally, the WP:CONSENSUS view of the RfC above stated: "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." It's only one small step from the WP:CONSENSUS view on academic listings to removing anything that's not notable about his life. Oddexit (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Oddexit, "It all comes down to multiple independent reliable sources covering someone's activities to establish what gets mentioned in this article" is not what I wrote, is it? A single citation is needed to mention the existence of something (a book, an event), but multiple sources would be required to cover interpretation of the event (unless the source itself is a summing up of interpretations). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend something like:

Arudou wrote a book about the 1999 Otaru hot springs incident. Originally published in Japanese, an expanded English version, Japanese Only — The Otaru Hot Springs Case and Racial Discrimination in Japan (ジャパニーズ・オンリー―小樽温泉入浴拒否問題と人種差別 Japanīzu Onrī - Otaru Onsen Nyūyoku Kyohi Mondai to Jinshu Sabetsu?) (ISBN 4-7503-2005-6), was published in 2004 and updated in 2006. A 10th anniversary ebook edition of the book was published in 2013.

Handbook for Newcomers, Migrants and Immigrants to Japan (ニューカマー定住ハンドブック?), co-authored by Arudou with Akira Higuchi (樋口 彰?), was published in 2008 as a bilingual guide for foreigners in Japan on a variety of issues including visas, starting a business, securing jobs, resolving legal problems, and planning for the future from entry into Japan to death. An updated 2nd edition was published in 2012, and an e-book version was released in 2013.

PS: How do I properly indent??

PSS: I also wonder if a case could be made that the Handbook blurb is not relevant either - according to Wiki he's not notable as an author, nor is he notable or even recognized as any kind of 'expert' on issues noted in the book. Further, the book was co-authored, not written by himself.

I think the whole publications section should be removed - as per the consensus view of the RfC above - but the book about the incident is probably relevant enough to add, using the short paragraph given above, in the main body text about the Otaru onsen incident. GrandTheftVotto (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You can indent but putting one or more colons before your statement. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this section should be removed... the content isn't really notable. I would also argue the subject of the BLP itself isn't particularly notable, but that's another issue. ChemicalG (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Notability has been established—the books have been reviewed—but it has also been established that a list of books by the subject of the article doesn't require sourcing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• There seems to be a lot of confusion around here about notability, which is perhaps not surprising, as on Misplaced Pages it has a specific meaning that is slightly different from the general concept of notability. Notability on Misplaced Pages refers purely to the decision on whether we should have an article on a given topic or not - if a subject is notable then we can have an article about it, but if not, then we can't. After we have made the decision about whether to have an article or not, notability usually plays no further role in deciding the article's content. The content itself is decided by our content policies of verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and by the biographies of living people policy. So "the content isn't notable" isn't a good reason to exclude content from an article. That's not to say we can just include anything, though - for example, see WP:WEIGHT for one of the usual reasons to exclude verifiable content. — Mr. Stradivarius 02:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I would recommend that we include only the Onsen incident book (Japanese Only), as per the text suggested above; I think it's the only item that meets all the criteria. Personally I'd also move the 'Japan Times columnist' blurb to Background section; regular columns aren't what I would consider 'publications' in this sense of the word, but I'll defer to others. GrandTheftVotto (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It's as if you didn't even read what Mr. Stradivarius wrote. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? Mr.Stradivarius noted the guidelines to follow in terms of the content of the article, which included biographies of living people. WP:NPF of WP:BLP says that for people who are relatively unknown (even if notable enough for their own article), the article should only (emphasis in original) include material relevant to the person's notability. I doubt any would argue that Arudou is notable as an author of fiction (and it was self-published), or that he is notable as an expert on business/legal issues for foreigners in Japan, or that he is notable as a travel guide author, or that he is notable as a sometimes columnist for a minor English-language newspaper in Japan. He is notable according to Misplaced Pages because of the Otaru onsen incident and resulting lawsuit, and for that reason his book on the incident and lawsuit is relevant, IMHO. The consensus was that the article should not include a list of academic publications (and I have doubts that the Japan Focus paper would qualify). Everything else is either self-published or not relevant to the person's notability, the point being here that he's relatively unknown (and is really only notable for the one event) GrandTheftVotto (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPF doesn't apply here, at least not for the things for which Debito has actively been campaigning for - see Misplaced Pages:Who is a low-profile individual for more on that. Even if NPF did apply, it's not like it is only Otaru Onsens that has enough coverage in reliable sources to survive a deletion discussion - e.g. Debito's Mr. James campaign got coverage in Time and the San Francisco Chronicle. Also, the consensus in the RfC was that there shouldn't be a list of all academic publications, not that there shouldn't be a list of academic publications at all - there's an important difference there. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Mr. Stradivarius for posting a link to that essay on low-profile individuals. I enjoyed reading that. Regarding the consensus, the summary never mentions anything about a revised list at all. What it specifically said was that "arguments can be made for including any given publication if it is deemed important enough in the context of the article." That doesn't mean that anything properly sourced can't be included or deleted in this article, either, of course. It just means that one can have a collegial discussion about it on the talk page. Second, if we agree to be consistent and fair in what we're discussing right now, it's necessary to acknowledge that the subject does not meet the WP:DUE criteria for a lot of things in this article. One puzzle right away is why two EFL textbooks are prominently mentioned at the beginning of the publications section. No independent third party with editorial control mentioned these textbooks, let alone reviewed them. They're not on Amazon.co.jp or Amazon.com for sale. They're not listed on Worldcat. I wasn't even able to find a copy to read at the National Diet Library of Japan or the Library of Congress per WP:V. More importantly, they're obviously not relevant to the subject's activism per WP:CONSENSUS -- the reason that we have an article in the first place. I can see the argument for including some limited publications that meet WP:V, WP:DUE, etc., and are relevant to the subject's notability as an activist. But EFL textbooks and travel guides that no one covered, for starters, have nothing to do with activism. So, we come back to the age-old question with WP:FRINGE articles like this: which facts get included and which don't? That's why I think this becomes so interesting. Oddexit (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

"Having to do with activism" is not a criterion for including content on this article. The RfC at the top of this page is a direct answer to your question, "Should a BLP contain an indiscriminate list of the BLP's own publications?" and says nothing about editorial control. Why are you bringing up the guideline on fringe theories? VQuakr (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages entry.

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

• a) Is it because of one lawsuit, the Otaru Onsens Case, between 1999 and 2005? Therefore, as has been argued above, only reliably-sourced materiel related to that event can be included in this BLP?
• b) Is it because of his “activism”? (however defined) that went on before (yes, long before: source, source), during, and after the Otaru Onsens Case, which can be referred to within a BLP when covered by reliable sources and media? (And if so, where is the threshold — one article? two? three? six? seven? nine? — before we no longer have counterclaims of WP:UNDUE etc.?)
• c) Is it because of what he has built up with his decades of research (citation record here and here), publications, archiving (yes, Debito.org itself has been covered by plenty of reliable media, source source), and, yes, activism? Are they not in some ways related, mutually-reinforcing, and complementary? Further, can't BLPs breathe over time to accommodate new research directions published in reliable sources?

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

"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: , 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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 publication".) 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 Academic 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)

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/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/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)

Misplaced Pages: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)

criticism section?

Hello all,

I understand that there are issues with NPOV, and that because it is a biography of a living person that we have to be "kind" to the individual - however this page appears to be fairly different from the last time I visited it several years back. I did a brief search on the internet and found this: http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/tonchamon/imgs/6/f/6faa106f.jpg

and:

http://blog.livedoor.jp/tonchamon/archives/52016887.html

I know that it has to be balanced, NPOV and so on, but the latest version of his BLP seems almost sanitized of any criticism, and appears to almost be like a CV for Debito.

If the sources are valid, and come from reliable sources - why can't they be included? Forza Conoscenza (talk) 05:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

We don't have to be "nice", but where did these opinions come from? People's blogs? It could also be argued that a "Criticism" section is inherently POV, our at the very least WP:UNDUE If we have a long-assed list of criticisms from marginal (yet verifiable) sources. That would be an issue with any article, not just a BLP. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The first link was a screenshot of the old version of the wiki BLP - if you have a look at it, it contains various criticism from various sources. There are various warnings saying that the subject is "controversial" - which implies that a lot of different people have different views on Debito. So, if these sources come from reliable sources, why can't they be included? (provided it is balanced, and without weight issues). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forza Conoscenza (talk • contribs) 05:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• It's remarkable how many single-purpose accounts haunt the talk page of the "non-notable" Arudou Debito. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• Deleted message by troll who has been warned twice for trolling already. 126.44.101.70 (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, it's precisely on topic, and you're making exactly my point—why is so much effort being expended by so many single-purpose accounts to pad this article with maximal negativity? Look at those screenshots—a paragraph per critic? With two pullquotes? Look how long the Kerr paragraph is. Look how long the Tasker one is. The whole thing could be summarized in a single paragraph, and even then may be too much weight. The "Criticism" section is entirely unjustified. Now, back to the real issue—what's with all the single-purpose accounts? Please stay on topic. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the effort by numerous accounts to edit this article by both "sides" supports notability. Of course the problem with "new" IP editors is that is hard to tell if they represent many editors or just one busy one. There have been a few explanations of why editors are using single-purpose accounts, but these seem to have been deleted by an admin. Maybe it is something we are not allowed to talk about here or they are not valid reasons.Browny Cow (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it's pretty obvious that at least some of the IP accounts are the same person—there simply isn't this kind of "new user" activity by an article that gets, on average, less that 100 pageviews per day. Most users don't even know there's a talk page to visit. I'm speaking as someone with 5000 pages on his watchlist.

Funny thing is, many of the sources these people want to include are totally legit and probably belong in the article (this one probably does). The problem is that these users want to absolutley flood the article with this stuff: instead of saying "XX, YY, and ZZ had such-and-such a criticism of Debito", they want to give each critic a full paragraph with multiple quotes and pullquotes. It's clear the "criticism" section was being used as a dumping ground to exhibit and highlight every negative thing that has ever been said about the subject. That ain't improving the article—that's trolling. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Would somebody please advise us what we are and are not allowed to talk about on BLP Talk pages? Thanks. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 01:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

What was deleted wasn't deleted because it's a BLP Talk page, but because it was obvious trolling. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Japan-related articles
• Mid-importance Japan-related articles
• WikiProject Japan articles
• Articles with connected contributors