Talk:Kiwao Nomura

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kiwao Nomura. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest[edit]

This page was created by user Hayimi, an alias for Jan Lauwereyns, who has co-authored a book with the subject of the article. This is a clear conflict-of-interest, about which the reader of the article should be alerted. Note also that the Japanese entry on Nomura was created by someone having the same family name. This is not an evaluation of notability nor is it a call for deletion, it is simply necessary to give the unsuspecting reader a warning about the nature of the content. 118.12.45.75 (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

user Ronz, no, the COI tag has been applied here correctly. There is a conflict of interest and it remains to be proven that the existence and content of this article is not the product of a non-neutral point of view. 118.12.45.75 (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're incorrect, and were aware of the fact when you wrote, Given the inflation of auto-biographies on the Wikipedia, I wonder if it would be advisable to explicitly identify such articles as such at Wikipedia_talk:Autobiography#A_modest_proposal

This was written before I was aware of the AUTO and COI tags. I think that is self-evident? If not I will try to explain what I mean. Likewise could you please explain how I could be aware of my own incorrectness before I knew about the COI and AUTO tags? Thanks. 118.12.45.75 (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating my response there:
No, these tags are not for simply identifying when sometime in the history of the article there were edits made by people who may have had a conflict of interest.
The COI tag is for identifying articles that are biased.

Hold on, this indicates a misunderstanding on your part. Articles that are biased lack a NPOV. There is a (different) tag for that. COI is to indicate that there is a conflict of interest present. To remove that, one must either disprove that there is a COI, or else one must prove that the COI has not affected content of the article. So if you can prove that the content is not biased in spite of the (already proven conflict of interest) then you may remove the tag. Otherwise not. 118.12.45.75 (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The AUTO tag is for identifying articles where COI applies and significant unreviewed edits have been made by the subject of the article. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from the content of the notices themselves:

From the COI notice:

"A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page."

All I'm looking for is proof that there is a neutral point of view where you have removed the tag. Please do this before you remove the tags again.

From the AUTO tag: This article is an autobiography or has been extensively edited by the subject or by someone connected to the subject.

I have given sufficient proof that this statement is true for each article where I have added the tag. Without being certain I would not have added the AUTO tag. Before removing these tags again, please give satisfactory proof that the tag is not justified. Thank you. 118.12.45.75 (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TO clarify the problem here: COI is clearly justified because the article was created and frequently edited by someone close to the subject of the article. To remove this tag it is necessary to prove that there is no COI and that the article exhibits a neutral point of view. The onus is upon you to do that before you remove the COI tag. 118.12.45.75 (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it looks like you're simply adding the tags as you first described. You appear to be assuming there are problems with the article, but have no idea if that's actually the case. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm responding to the WP:3O request. Having had a look at your discussion, there seem to me to be two levels here -- (1) specifically, whether this page involvs a COI or is autobiographical, and (2) more generally, a disagreement about the scope or criteria for using those tags. As such, I think it needs more careful scrutiny by people familiar with the BLP guidelines. Therefore I suggest flagging this up at BLP Noticeboard, unless either of you think that's not a good way to go? FrankP (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

118.12.45.75 : Can you provide evidence that there's any sort of COI at play here? You wrote Hayimi, an alias for Jan Lauwereyns but as it stands that's a completely unsupported assertion. If you cannot support it, please withdraw it. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If you had taken the trouble to look at the list of contributions from Hayimi you would find that the user name used to be Hayimi/Jan Lauwereyns. Please see the oldest entries from the list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hayimi Lauwereyns, is the author of at least two items in the list of references. He is also Nomura's co-author on a collection of poetry. Lauwereyns is a former Wikipedia auto-biographer who deleted his self-authored Wikipedia article after being tagged. The Wikipedia is now rife with all kinds of auto-biography and self-promotion. The current action is only symbolic but perhaps it spreads awareness that something can be done and appropriate use of the existing AUTO and COI tags is a step in the right direction. 118.12.45.75 (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence that Hayimi edited under a different username.
I do see that user Hayimi created a subpage to work on an article about Jan Lauwereyns.
I'm afraid these accusations of a COI are unsupported, unless there's something else. --Ronz (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have left a note at Hayimi's user page and suggest we wait for him to weigh in. 118.12.45.75 (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronz In the meantime you can look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hayimi/Jan_Lauwereyns 118.12.45.75 (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that unsubstantiated assertions of a COI can be considered harassment. That's why I've asked for evidence or for you to withdraw it. Please withdraw it at this time. --Ronz (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided sufficient evidence that COI is to be suspected. Look at the page I just linked (and here again to be clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hayimi/Jan_Lauwereyns). This is the user page for Hayimi, in which he gives his biography as the same as the biography as Jan Lauwereyns. If that is not proof, what is? 118.12.45.75 (talk) 05:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, there is a possibility that when Hayimi/Jan Lauwereyns sees this he will delete the above linked page. Is there a way to archive it so that it cannot be deleted? 118.12.45.75 (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

118.12.45.75 You're wrong about the username having been changed, it's impossible for usernames to contain a / character. The page you're referring to is in the userpage space. Any user can create such pages, like this: User:FrankP/Example. Many users (myself included) use their userpages to hold drafts of articles we are working on. You should not continue to attempt to out another user - please do read that policy. Ronz is right that what you are doing could be considered harrassment. If you want the issues you are raising to be dealt with then you would get better results if you were able to work more constructively. FrankP (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was further strong evidence that Hayimi is an alias for Jan Lauwereyns: the now deleted JL page was created and majorly edited by Hayimi, and Hayimi deleted the JL page soon after it was tagged as autobiographical. I have already read the out page, and this is not my interest or aim, though I understand the concern. Regarding more constructive approaches, I wonder if you have any specific recommendations, @FrankP. What other approaches are there for dealing with all the autobiographical content in the Wikipedia? Do you not see this as an issue? If so, what approaches can be taken? Where to discuss this? What should readers do when arrive at content that is suspected to be autobiographical or self-promotional? 118.12.45.75 (talk) 10:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starting the discussion going on Wikipedia_talk:Autobiography seems constructive. I put a link from the BLP Noticeboard section to that discussion. It's best to direct people to one place, whichever place that happens to be, because disjointed discussions are not so helfpul. Re-opening the Third opinion request (in other words looking for a fourth opinion) did not seem so constructive to me, but never mind. It will be interesting to see how Coastside views it. I do see the issue you are raising. I am still making my mind up about it, and would welcome discussion. FrankP (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know I only asked for a third opinion once, so not sure what you mean about re-opening it. It is encouraging to know that a more experienced editor than I am agrees that there is an issue here. Would you use an encyclopedia that has a significant percentage of self-promotional and autobiographical content? What if there is no time-efficient mechanism for readers to flag such content? 118.12.45.75 (talk) 11:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think I was mistaken to say that. Sorry. Whenever I use Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia I suppose) I try to weigh up what I am reading as to its reliability, plausibility, possible bias and so on. As to time-efficient, well, sometimes we have to accept delay and imperfection. It takes time to establish consensus. FrankP (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. regarding the claim of COI, the Japanese version of this page was created by someone having the same family name as the subject. As was noted, when this page was first tagged. 118.12.45.75 (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is worth noting, sure. But it's not wrong as such to create an article about someone you are connected to (it's discouraged, of course). The questions should be whether the subject is notable and whether the content is verifiable and presented neutrally. Even when it is not, that might be fixable. FrankP (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Writing_about_yourself,_family,_friends 118.12.45.75 (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In multiple places, Wikipedia strongly discourages creating and/or editing articles about oneself, a family member, or friend. All I have been saying is that COI and/or AB/AUTO/AUTOBIO tags are appropriate to flag such cases. 118.12.45.75 (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still no evidence? I've gone ahead and removed the tag. This is disruptive. Please stop. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you and I agree it is discouraged (I said so in my last comment). But I support the action by Ronz because you have not specified any identifiable content in the page which is unverifiable or poorly sourced or biased. We should be talking about content. FrankP (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did either of you look at the actual page. The biography section cites no sources. How's that for quality content? Anyways this seems to be a fruitless task. Over and out. 118.12.45.75 (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also have a look at the (older) Japanese page. It is a resume. But that's not the fundamental problem here. The fundamental problem here is that both the Japanese and English pages were created by someone who appear to have a close link to the subject of the article. It is content created with a COI. 118.12.45.75 (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kiwao_Nomura&oldid=1206769977"