Talk:Debito Arudou/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia contrary to Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia "obnoxious and annoying."[1] 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 Wikipedia 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.[24] 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."[19] 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)

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 Wikipedia it has a specific meaning that is slightly different from the general concept of notability. Notability on Wikipedia 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 ^{♪ talk ♪} 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 ^{♪ talk ♪} 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)

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)

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)

This article has been discussed on some blogs/forums from both sides, probably some traffics come from them, giving a high proportion of readers that want to correct the article in both directions. Agree that some accounts/ips seem to be the same person who writes in an antagonistic way . Not sure it’s trolling, or just using trolling to mean someone who disagrees with your view point. There were claims that the subject of this article or his supporters have engaged in attempts to affect the real lives of people who disagreed with him on the internet. Victims alleged contact made with their employers by the subject. There may not be any truth these claims, but it is fair that editors feel they need to protect their anonymity more strongly. However, as unsubstantiated claims against the subject couched as fact, it is right that they were deleted.Browny Cow (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)