Talk:Debito Arudou/Archive 3

"he later chose to renounce his US citizenship"
"Later?" Its my understanding that one HAS to renounce ones native citizenship in order to be granted Japanese citizenship. 59.146.57.26 (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * He said there is a loophole that would normally let people keep both citizenships. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's what he claims (emphasis on the word "claim"). In cases like this, I think it's always best to remember that unless a reliable third-party source has published on this particular issue of loopholes, we should avoid repeating arguments that are inherently self-serving for the subject of this article. That is one of the caveats clearly spelled out in WP:SELFPUB. It would probably be alright to cite Aruduou's *opinion* of this contentious issue, but we shouldn't cite Arudou more generally about citizenship laws in Japan. He's not a lawyer or legal scholar or government bureaucrat. My two cents. J Readings (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, what we could do to confirm what he says is check U.S. citizenship law. If he says a certain provision exists or does not, we should be able to cite the actual U.S. citizenship policy. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I agree. But I would think that Japanese citizenship laws and ordinances would be more relevant, no? Japan does not allow dual citizenship, whereas the United States does. If there are loopholes or legal caveats and so forth, we should be able to find them spelled out clearly in Japanese legal documents cited within a reliable third-party source. J Readings (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But the loophole is supposed to be on the United States side - I think it has to do with other countries' rulings not able to strip a US citizen of his citizenship unless certain circumstances apply. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see this first: http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html - I'll add another post when I'm finished reading the entire document. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And here is the dual nationality page: http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html WhisperToMe (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting the links. What Arudou was talking about in his self-published essay, if memory serves (it's been a while), was the supposed one year or two year legal window between obtaining Japanese citizenship and renouncing one's former citizenship. If a newly naturalized Japanese citizen should change one's mind, there is supposedly a legal window of opportunity to back out without any legal fallout on the Japanese side (e.g., prison, fines). That was supposedly the legal issue. For us, as editors of an encyclopedia, the issue then comes back to cross-referencing Arudou's claim with a reliable third-party source that literally highlights the window. Even though I haven't read the US documents closely yet, I would be surprised if the US government clearly indicates that laws by foreign countries not allowing dual citizenship can be ignored. At the end of the day, an American citizen makes the choice to become a Japanese citizen -- after carefully reviewing one's adopted country's laws and regulations. That's why I'm pretty sure the issue to be publicly verified is really on the Japanese side. J Readings (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been doing my own research about this process, as I am interested in doing this myself one day. According to Arudou's essays/articles where he describes the process he went through to obtain naturalization, the Japanese government provided him with papers (and a seal?) to send to the U.S. government to indicate that he is renouncing his U.S. citizenship. Now this is my own speculation: As long as he follows the directions of the Japanese government, they won't come down on him. The kicker is that the U.S. government only allows you to renounce your citizenship in person at a consulate. Therefore any official documents that the Japanese government has you send out are ignored by the U.S. government. Would anyone else like to verify this? -- J.B. 5:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.25.56 (talk)
 * This page is for discussions on how to improve the article. original research, speculation and synthesis of published material which advances a position are not allowed in Wikipedia articles, and really don't belong on talk pages, either. Find a reliable published source for anything you want to add to the article. In this case, you would need a reliable source that stated that Debito Arudou's renunciation did not meet the requirements of US law. -- William&#39;s scraper (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * in any case, Arudou's essay which is the source for the article's statement about renunciation clearly states he went to a consulate and had to fill out some forms. He also has images of his canceled US passport and a certificate of loss of US citizenship.  So as far as this article is concerned (and as mentioned, we're here to discuss the article's contents and how to improve it), the anon's comments are not relevant.   --C S (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag added by subject of this Wikpedia entry August 2008.
This is Arudou Debito, the subject of this Wikipedia entry. As of August 22, 2008, I have added an NPOV tag.

As much as I don’t think I should touch how historians render my history, Wikipedia’s entry on me has been a source of consternation. Years of slanted depictions and glaring omissions by anonymous net “historians” are doing a public disservice to the media — exacerbated as Wikipedia increasingly gains credibility and continuously remains the top or near-top site appearing in a search engine search.

Controversial figures such as myself may naturally invite criticism, but when a couple of “guardian editors” take advantage of the fundamental weakness of Wikipedia (which, according to their interpretation of the rules, means the entry gives priority towards towards third-party opinions, whoever they are, over quoting the primary source) with the aim of distorting the record, this must be pointed out and corrected. Otherwise it is harder to take Wikipedia seriously as a general source.

I go into more specifics at http://www.debito.org/?p=1878, citing the most recent version of the “Arudou Debito” Wikipedia entry. The issues I have with the “Arudou Debito” Wikipedia entry are, in sum:

1) A “Criticism” section not found in the Wikipedia entries of other “controversial figures”, such as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama — meaning there is overwhelming voice given to the critics and no voice given any supporters for balance.

2) An avoidance of quoting primary source material just because it is archived on my website, Debito.org — even though it is third-party material published by other authors.

3) Omissions of books I published months and years ago.

4) Other historical inaccuracies and misleading summaries of issues and cases.

5) Privacy issues, such as mentioning my children by name, who are still minors and not public figures.

6) “Criticism” sources overwhelmingly favoring one defunct website, which seems to be connected to the “editors” standing guard over this entry.

7) Other information included that is irrelevant to developing this Wikipedia entry of me as a “teacher, author, and activist”, such as my divorce.

In sum, where are the (positive) quotes from the people and published authors who actually have something verifiably meaningful to say about Japan and social issues, such as Donald Richie (  here  and  here  ),  Ivan Hall ,  Chalmers Johnson  ,  John Lie  ,  Jeff Kingston  ,  Robert Whiting  ,  Mark Schreiber  , <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#english"> Eric Johnston </a> , <a href="http://www.debito.org/?page_id=582"> Terrie Lloyd </a> , <a href="http://www.debito.org/mulveyonhonjoreview.html"> Bern Mulvey </a> , <a href="http://www.debito.org/publications.html#ACADEMICCITATIONS"> Lee Soo Im </a> , and <a href="http://www.debito.org/japaneseonly.html#japanese"> Kamata Satoshi </a> ? More <a href="http://www.debito.org/publications.html#ACADEMICCITATIONS">citations from academic sources here</a>.

For these reasons, I will put a “neutrality disputed” tag on the “Arudou Debito” Wiki entry and hope Wikipedia has the mechanisms to fix itself. 71.198.61.159 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Arudou Debito


 * IP address is San Fransisco, which is consistent with his blog so I would note that this is probably Mr. Arudou.
 * For another person with a criticism section, see Patrick Moore (environmentalist). The content may be attacked, but to the extent that the text is sourced and verifiable, there is nothing out of the ordinary about the criticism section.  I may have a shot at the other points in a little bit. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 19:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's me. And criticisms at the link provided to Patrick Moore are by other environmentalists, not just anyone.  Under this qualification, let's have some criticisms from fellow people published in the field of Japan's human rights, not stockbrokers and novelists.Arudoudebito (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC) (finally managed to sign in)

Debito Arudou posted this here: http://www.debito.org/index.php/?p=1878 - We may have to control the editing permissions in case the editing goes out of hand. Anyway, Arudou, please read COI and BLP - These two policies are relevant to your article. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I received lots of advice from friendly Wikiers on my website about avenues to pursue (those who know more about this system, please feel free to notify anyone who can help make this a better article). But I only posted a summary here and provided a link to a full critique of this Wikipedia entry on my website.  But some replies to my site said I should take any issues up on this Talk page.  So, should I provide all details I provide there, here?  What's the etiquette?  Thanks.Arudoudebito (talk) 06:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Arudou, one tip I would have is to be extremely careful while editing your article (as per WP:COI) - You may do it as long as you are very careful with your editing. Also, regarding the divorce, BLP says:
 * "In a biography of a living person, an event such as marriage, divorce, legal separation, or when the intention to marry, divorce, legally separate is verifiable by its wide publication in several reliable sources, the name of the subject's intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse is not private, unless there has been a court seal on the disclosure of the name."
 * However if no newspapers or other reliable sources wrote about your divorce, the divorce stuff may need to be removed. (I'm not entirely sure - I may need to check with other users) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you mention your divorce in your book, and your book was published by a reliable publishing house, then we would treat it like a regular reliable source instead of a self-published source from the subject of the article and therefore we could use that to source the divorce. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention my divorce in my books. I wasn't divorced when I wrote them! :)  It's immaterial to my activism, except as it relates to my name change. Arudoudebito (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice, but I won't be editing my own article, as I have said repeatedly. Precisely because of potential COI. Others should do it. Arudoudebito (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding new edits (as of August 23, 2008):
Hi Editors. Debito here. I'm sure it'll take time for people to get to everything, but I've been waiting years for somebody to clean things up. So let me give some pointers, if I may:

1) I have written three books. Japanese Only is in two languages.  They are two books, and they have different ISBNs.  Handbook is my third. All three ISBNs should be listed.  So should more of their reviews, since they are published and sourced.  And why isn't Handbook linked to anything, such to as my publisher's website if you really want to avoid Debito.org.  Found at http://www.akashi.co.jp/home.htm (they'll have to do a search)

2) "Opinions" is an odd subject heading. Whose opinions? for a start.  If you're going to talk about the projects I've been involved in under that heading, please start digging around Debito.org and pull up items which are in print from newspapers, making them published, third-party sources.  There are lots.  You can find them on my publications page.  Two links, for starters: http://www.debito.org/publications.html#CITATIONS http://www.debito.org/publications.html#APPEARANCES

3) The summaries of the onsen lawsuit case are simply awful. The best one to write them would be me, but no doubt somebody would scream COI.  So somebody please get cracking on that.  Or I can write them here and you can put them through the editorial process.  Again, I cannot conscionably edit my own Wikipedia entry.  I can, however, express myself through the Talk page for due consideration.

4) Somebody rewrite my reasons for naturalization, already. I've given the link.  http://www.debito.org/japantodaycolumns1-3.html  They are published sources in Japan Today, albeit written by me.  But there's no excuse for keeping the rotten misinterpretations of my motivations for being a Japanese up on site any longer.  It's infuriating.

5) Delete those JapanReview.net pseudo-sources off the entry. JapanReview.net is not a publication.  It doesn't belong.  Delete Wilczinski too, if you're going to be strict about not sourcing Debito.org.  There is no published source for his comments.

Again, there's enough stuff you can source if you just stick to newspaper articles. I have archived them assiduously on my publications page. That's the best place to start. Everything published and mentioned on Debito.org has the time, date, publication, and original link.

That's probably enough for starters. Thanks to everyone for help. Arudoudebito (talk) 03:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Debito, you can edit the article about you, as I mentioned on your talk page. If you edit per Wikipedia policy, there should be no big problem.  This means applying the same standard to the writing of the article about yourself as would be required on other articles: neutrality, accuracy, and verifiability, to mention some of the most important.


 * If you feel reluctant to edit the article directly, you can post things here, providing the appropriate links for verification, and other editors will insert them into the article. You could, if you wished, start a new subpage of this talk page (for example, at Talk:Debito Arudou/temp and rewrite the entire article as you think it should read.  Just provide a link on this talk page so that people can look at it.


 * Some of the problems you mention may or may not be contrary to Wikipedia's policies and therefore the changes you desire might not be possible. For instance, it's commonplace to mention the marital status of article subjects.


 * Finally, please avoid using hard rules by typing a series of dashes or a long series of equal signs to separate portions of talk pages. Instead, you can create new sections (by enclosing headings in sets of two equal signs) or sub-sections (by enclosing headings in sets of three equal signs).  Thanks.  Exploding Boy (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the editing advice EB. Sorry, again, I'm not gonna touch the main page.  I'll keep raising concerns here.Arudoudebito (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Are the textbooks relevant? They certainly are "published", but in Japan, where you can find a publisher to print just about anything, this is not particularly noteworthy. They are certainly not prominent among the titles offered for teaching business English either in Japan or worldwide. A glance at their covers will indicate their quality.
 * http://www.debito.org/cwdb.jpg
 * Also, even if his 'published' textbooks are considered noteworthy, outside of those he has published independently, he has not written 'several'. He has written two.
 * I have similar reservations about Arudou's 'academic' publications. Most of these seem to be in 'kiyou' - university departmental publications with a system of in-house peer review (if they have any peer-review at all) which are seldom read outside their own departments. Although the JPRI and Japan Focus articles might constitute 'academic' publications, this would depend on how they were reviewed.--Anarmac (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to name his daughters? (Part 2)
There was a section above which posed the question "Is it really necessary to name his daughters?". It concluded with "Yes, it is important to mention his daughters, since he has used them as examples of discrimination prominently." Which is great and all, but doesn't actually answer the question "Is it really necessary to name his daughters?"

I understand why they're mentioned, and support that, but there's no reason for their names to be mentioned, is there? 121.108.90.17 (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He named his daughters on his website and in his books. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a particular problem with it. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's as clear as day to me that the names should be removed. WP:BLP states that "Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger."  In addition, it is irrelevant whether the information is available elsewhere.  For example, we usually remove people's birthdates unless they are so ridiculously famous it is useless to try.  Even if we can obtain these dates elsewhere.  There is no need to mention the names.  And Wikipedia is a more far-reaching source than Arudou's book or website.  --C S (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the circumstance laid out in the book must be covered that daughter #1 looks more Japanese while daughter #2 looks more Caucasian. That fact is relevant to the subject matter.  Even using the exact wording "daughter #1" doesn't fix the privacy issues because people who matter know who's who. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 00:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, why does this make it clear why the names should be mentioned? Simply "his first daughter....his second daughter..." is sufficient.  The point is not to obscure this information for people already in the know.  It is for random people reading the article.  And they do not know who's who.  --C S (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because everyone who wants to know what the names of his daughters are will know anyway. See the Google Search below, plus the Washington Post website article snippet (I found it from typing Debito Arudou Amy Anna in Google News and set it to search all dates) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There are substantial concerns raised by Arudou. This kind of thing should not be handled purely by people who have edited this article but have no BLP editing experience. So I will place a notice on the BLP noticeboard. I think a 3rd party opinion will not only offer another perspective, but do much to calm Arudou's fears of biased editing. --C S (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This article mentions "Amy" and "Anna": http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-288782.html - The names of his daughters have been published in newspaper articles specifically about Debito Arudou's activities. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also the names of his daughters are literally all over his website: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=Amy+Anna+site%3Adebito.org&btnG=Search WhisperToMe (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And if you read the BLP policy, you would know that by itself is irrelevant (from Biographies_of_living_persons):"Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.""Editors should take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger. In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, editors should be willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page."
 * I have removed your re-inclusion of the names. BLP policy is clear on this: you must justify the inclusion of this material.  The burden of evidence is on those who want to include the material.  Your comments so far are not adequate justification according to BLP.  What is the reason it is so important to include the names to override the caution we must usually apply in this situation?


 * I have made a comment at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard to encourage BLP savvy editors to make a review. --C S (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

C S, the names have been disseminated - http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/29/world/29JAPA.html?ex=1219464000&en=6f7fbc94c3db476b&ei=5070 = here's a New York Times article complete with names and photographs of Debito Arudou's family WhisperToMe (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, that is irrelevant. Simply because the information is "out there" is not sufficient reasoning.  Nowhere in the BLP snippet above does it say it's ok just because it's "out there".  You need to justify why it is important or necessary to include the names.  What is lost by not including the names?  --C S (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * C S - Indeed the BLP snippet indeed says it can be a-okay if it is "out there" - First you have "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases)," - If the names are printed in major newspapers like the Washington Post and NYT, they have been disseminated. Second, you have "When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." - These are news stories, but I can find multiple instances, and the heart of Arudou's argument is that his daughters were being excluded because of their appearances. The reason why it is important to include the names is because Arudou is using his daughters as a central argument to his Onsen case. If you use "daughter 1" and "daughter 2" people are going to wonder who they are. His website is controlled by him, but he prominently features them there and in his book. With the various newspaper articles about the family, you have a lot of people who already know the names of his daughters. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It says "widely disseminated", doesn't it? Now are you really going to argue that their names are widely disseminated?  Names of relatives of prominent people are often widely disseminated.  But this is a much weaker case.  --C S (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify, note the BLP snippet above explicitly mentions how we should try to weight mentions (scholarly articles get more weight than brief mentions in news articles) in a discussion on the appropriateness of inclusion. If you are correct, and we simply include this because it has been "disseminated", what would be the point of the remarks I quoted? Clearly, dissemination by itself is not sufficient for inclusion. I really think you're not getting the BLP policy. This is not like Pokemon where we include any statistic or factoid, regardless of merit. On articles of living people, we are supposed to exercise editorial caution and include only material which it is necessary to include, so as to avoid unnecessary harm. Now you may think it does not harm to Arudou or his daughters to include his name. But you don't get to make that decision for him! We can't remove everything, of course, Arudou wants removed, otherwise we may not have much of an article left. But since you haven't offered a single good reason to include the names other than the fact that we can, we can certainly exercise caution here and not include it. --C S (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * CS, " clarify, note the BLP snippet above explicitly mentions how we should try to weight mentions (scholarly articles get more weight than brief mentions in news articles) in a discussion on the appropriateness of inclusion." - So, what is this supposed to mean? This seems to say that if the person is already mentioned in the media and/or in scholarly works, the inclusion is not as much of a risk as it is to include the name of a person who is only briefly mentioned in one article, is not mentioned at all and/or who has his or her name intentionally concealed (i.e. a rape victim) - Therefore a person who has his or her name widely disseminated should generally be okay to disseminate on Wikipedia
 * "On articles of living people, we are supposed to exercise editorial caution and include only material which it is necessary to include, so as to avoid unnecessary harm." - I well understand that point.
 * "But since you haven't offered a single good reason to include the names other than the fact that we can, we can certainly exercise caution here and not include it." - Based on the text you cited, I disagree.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Okay, let's think of it this way. What circumstances would make mentioning of the names required? If what we cannot mention the names with what we have now, what would make mentioning of the names required? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, here's what happened: after consultation with DragonflySixtyseven on IRC, he said that the names of the daughters should not be included UNLESS they themselves speak about the experiences via reliable sources. If this isn't the case, then the daughters may not like how Debito Arudou and other articles talk about them. The wife is acceptable to name as she spoke in the New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/29/world/29JAPA.html?ex=1219464000&en=6f7fbc94c3db476b&ei=5070 WhisperToMe (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a fast moving page! Must have had 4 5 edit conflicts trying to respond this time :-/.  Anyway, I'm glad we came to some agreement here.  Now hopefully we can move on to some of the other issues.  --C S (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The is no encyclopedic purpose served by including the names of his daughters here. Although the names have appeared elsewhere, the appearance of the names in Wikipedia means that they will be seen much more widely than if we left them out of the article. As WP:BLP says,
 * "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement."
 * This should apply even more strongly to minor children of the subjects of articles. -- William&#39;s scraper (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * While I don't think that the claims are particularly titillating (as they can be verified), I see that minor children would include people who were minor children who are now teenagers or adults. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I wrote on my blog, my daughters have specifically said they do not want to be listed here on Wikipedia. That trumps any sophistic rule you might want to throw at us, WhisperToMe.  Grow a heart, please.  Keep the fact of the case that my daughters were involved in this case and how.  Remove their names.Arudoudebito (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's "special rules" more or less govern how things go; we actually make decisions by consensus, so many of these "special rules" are guidelines. BLP is a policy, so it is more stringent. Also, you may want to be a little careful in how others are addressed. Just as a reminder, please see Civility. Also, their names have been gone from the "Debito Arudou" article. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, please read this section Biographies_of_living_persons/Help - It lists contacts and information on how to manage information about yourself on Wikipedia WhisperToMe (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A not dissimilar topic was raised over on the Nick Baker talk page regarding his son. Which might help to throw some light on a way to proceed with this issue. David Lyons (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

WaiWai has fleeting secondary mentions, Little Yellow Jap is inadmissible
Regarding what User:Addmi added, the references were:
 * "Japan rails at Australian's tabloid trash", Brisbane Times (2008-07-05)
 * A Google search of Debito's site
 * Blog post number 1,
 * One of Debito's pages
 * Blog post number 2,

The only one that can be kept is the first one. A comic that an activist drew for his readership or what have you is not close to notable. I had to mention this because apparently someone wants to start an edit war. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 18:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have removed Addmi's additions of more or less the same content from Ryann Connell until this matter is resolved. --C S (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

These (following 2 links) are not "Blog posts". http://www.tanteifile.com/newswatch/2008/08/17_01 http://www.tanteifile.com/newswatch/2008/08/19_01

http://www.tanteifile.com is an Online Newspaper site. --Addmi (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The excerpt of the article doesn't even quote me. It quotes the reporter's interpretation, which is not what I stated, and doesn't quote it completely anyway.  And then it omits what I did state.  What I did say about the issue is here: http://www.debito.org/?p=1850  Fundamentally different.  And if you read the "published" article being sourced in Japanese, it's essentially an online entry with no author listed by name and nobody cited by name as a source for all the "puzzled and shocked" Japanese.  Yes, it is essentially a blog post; we can read Japanese just fine.  This is IMHO typical of what goes on by edit warriors contributing to Wikipedia, and crikey, it's like swatting flies.


 * Thanks for saying something. Restores my faith in the editing process at Wikipedia.Arudoudebito (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to have some of the 5 references to be revived as soon as possible.

Which of the 5 references (if any) do you object to, and why? Arudou wouldn't mind a link to his Cartoon page.

Arudou uses the racial slur "Little Yellow Jap" 6 times in English in his page. So what would be wrong with quoting from his page, which is done many time in this entry already? --Addmi (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we move this thread of discussion to the top of the page?


 * Sorry, no. The long established practice is to put new sections at the bottom.  Too many people will be confused if we switch.  Use either the table of contents or a keyboard shortcut to quickly move down to the end of the page.  I think most Wikipedians don't find it that confusing because we are in the habit of using the "diff" function to compare the newest version of a page to an older one.  --C S (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The remaining 4 references are as follows. Let's discuss them:

Links to WaiWai in debito.org, 54 links retrieved on 2008-07-22
 * 1. Arudou approvingly cites and quotes WaiWai over 50 times in his site.

毎日変態ニュースを擁護する人権活動家の大学准教授 "Mainichi hentai news is supported by human rights activist and professor"], Tantei File (2008-08-17)
 * 2. Many Japanese people were puzzled and shocked by Arudou's support of WaiWai's exaggerated and mistranslated articles of sexual perversion . [http://www.tanteifile.com/newswatch/2008/08/17_01

In August 2008, Arudou was criticized for his hand-drawn caricature of a buck-toothed Japanese man wearing a loincloth, and for using the World War II era racial slur "Little Yellow Jap" (six times in English, and several times in Japanese) for his cartoon, which he had displayed since 2005 as a "parody" of "Little Black Sambo" .


 * 3. The link to Arudou's Cartoon page. http://www.debito.org/chibikurosanbo.html#parody

毎日新聞擁護の准教授、 HP に日本人差別の作品掲載 "Professor defending Mainichi displays his cartoon discriminating against the Japanese on his Home Page"], Tantei File (2008-08-19)
 * 4. The reference to the article in "Tantei File".[http://www.tanteifile.com/newswatch/2008/08/19_01

--Addmi (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's relevant that Arudou's use of the expression "Little Yellow Jap" has been very open and prominent on the Net.


 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22yellow+jap Search for "yellow jap" -- #1 is Arudou


 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22little+yellow+jap #1 for "little yellow jap"


 * http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22yellow+jap Image search "yellow jap" -- No. 1 2 & 3 are Arudou's


 * http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22little+yellow+jap No. 1 2 & 3 for "little yellow jap"

--Addmi (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tantei File
I was calling http://www.tanteifile.com a blog, which upon more and more investigation, may not be entirely fair. The ja Wikipedia article on the site is 探偵ファイル, and from what I've read so far, it calls itself an independent newspaper.

The links given for references use an IP address as a domain (43.253.19.226), which was my first red flag, but more importantly than that, this reference is using stuff taken as a straight derivative Japan Probe. I read Japan Probe, it's interesting, but characteristically NOT usable in any form in Wikipedia.

So maybe it's usable, maybe it's not, I don't feel like I can make that judgment. If the first ref is usable, I don't even see much different than what The Brisbane Times reports. From ,「これらの反動主義者たちに屈するな」 it mentions how he protested the closing down of WaiWai, which is pretty well established. The second one, reads like an editorial. Who wrote it? This thing could maybe be at the level of a tabloid. The little Jap and accusations of posting racist stuff on his website could be added IF credibility of the publication was established.

The Google thing is specifically not admissible into the article by Wikipedia policy. It's not worth your time telling us many hits something gets. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 00:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I'm reading here, the Tantei File entries are of a dubious nature. We should not rely on them.  In addition, it's unclear to me the rationale for including this material.  Addmi, perhaps you can explain why you are so insistent on including it.  In your view, is it an important chapter of Arudou's biography?  It seems to have made little impact in the media.  And regardless of the G hits, "yellow Jap" is indisputably a World War 2 reference.  Very few people are going to think "Debito Arudou" when they hear "yellow Jap".  So I don't see the relevance of your Google research.  I noticed Addmi added a lengthy criticism of Arudou to a biography of Ryann Connell.  That seems completely out of place, and it doesn't do much to convince me that Addmi has proper perspective here.   --C S (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Tantei File is probably more dignified than the weeklies that Arudou was defending when it was convenient for him.

>>> Defending the weeklies, as well as Connell and his collaborators, is the unflagging media critic and campaigner for human rights Debito Arudou, who wrote that WaiWai was an essential guide to Japanese attitudes and editorial directives. <<< http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/japan-rails-at-australians-tabloid-trash/2008/07/04/1214951041660.html?page=2

Re: [It seems to have made little impact in the media.] --- Since Arudou is not known in Japan (or anywhere else), things he does and says make little impact in the media. If a much more famous person (like Tony Lazlo or Pakkun) said similar things about WaiWai or "Gaijin" or "Yellow Jap", it would be all over the news.

I had three short sentences at the time [C S] deleted them, not a "lengthy criticism of Arudou" ([C S]'s words), and not a criticism of Arudou at all. My three short sentences don't seem "completely out of place" ([C S]'s words). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryann_Connell&oldid=233552468  A [Criticism] section, followed by a short [Support] section seems appropriate to me.

I'm not defending the Tantei File. I thought there was some information that was appropriate in this [Arudou] entry, and much of that can be said without mentioning Tantei File.

P.S. Much of this discussion became moot when the entire [Criticism] section was deleted on Aug. 23. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debito_Arudou&diff=233731641&oldid=233711343 Besides the material that could be considered irrelevant, [C S] deleted material that was clearly relevant to the [Ryann_Connell] entry, which I may try to revive later. --Addmi (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If the Tantei File is more dignified, that may score you a rhetorical point, but nothing else. It's still not good enough to include.  Your comments accept that Arudou's "Yellow Jap" thing was not all over the news (or in any reputable news, for that matter), and that's what is relevant.  Your opinions are based on your lack of familiarity with Wikipedia practices.  Criticism section followed by support section are not acceptable.   Inserting criticism of Arudou into Connell's entry appears to simply be an end run.  I know you don't regard what you inserted as criticism, but the wording is clearly such.  Word choices like "approvingly" and "many Japanese were...shocked" are clearly there to paint a negative picture of him.  I doubt anybody besides you would disagree with my removal of the material from Connell's article.  It is indeed lengthy in comparison with the whole. --C S (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Little Yellow Jap"
If a person (animal-activist) AA (only known as an "animal rights activist" who preaches sensitivity to animals) has a cartoon web page that shows that he amuses himself by depicting torture of animals, shouldn't that be mentioned in his Wikipedia entry?

Here, we have a person DA (only known as a "human rights activist" who preaches sensitivity to different cultures and races) has a cartoon web page that shows that he amuses himself by humiliating a nation of people that he refers to as the "Little Yellow Jap". Shouldn't that be mentioned in his Wikipedia entry?

He claims to be objecting to the 2004 publication of "Little Black Sambo" by a Japanese publisher, so this may be mentioned as well, together with the fact that there are about 250 publications of the same book in the US. http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_adv_b/?search-alias=stripbooks&unfiltered=1&field-title=little+black+sambo (He seems to have no objections to the US versions.) --Addmi (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well then let me reply with another example. Let's say that John McCain had something on his personal webpage that was just blatant abraded racist.  I mean, we'll say there is no question about the intention of the material.


 * Provided that it is
 * On his personal webpage
 * That page is one of many
 * And there have been no secondary source mentions of the content
 * Then no, we can not add it to the Wikipedia article, no matter how amazingly Earth shattering it is. Why?  Because if it was really Earth shattering then some other source would cover it, and then it could be added.


 * Debito's motivations for posting the comic on his blog stand a severe chance of being misrepresented. To the extent of my knowledge, he is satirizing a Japanese book that portrayed a black person in an distasteful manner.  We've already covered his public statements comparing the N-word to "Gaijin", and there are no credible sources for the comic, only an internet mob at best.  So no, the "Little Yellow Jap" should not be mentioned anywhere in the article. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Arudou with a famous person (such as John McCain) is inappropriate. Could someone else comment on my original question --- which was, Shouldn't [crucial information regarding credibility of a minor self-promotor] be mentioned in his Wikipedia entry? --Addmi (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Both McCain and Arudou are covered by WP:BLP as they are living persons. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Arudou with a famous person (such as John McCain) is inappropriate for this page because much of the discussion here is caused by lack of prominent publications on Arudou.

Comparing Arudou with a famous person is especially inappropriate for this issue (of Arudou's use of racial slurs) because if McCain used a racial slur, within hours there would be thousands of articles in the world's top news sources.

Could someone (who understands the point I just made) comment on my original question? --Addmi (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Both Arudou and McCain are considered noteworthy for this encyclopedia, AND they are both living people. That makes them qualify for NPOV. Plus all information that is not obvious (i.e. the earth is round) needs to be referenced. Now, since Arudou is not as well known as McCain, his page will probably never become as well-developed as McCain's. Even so, we have to get the article right. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section
I want to make a few general comments on criticism sections per se, then one related to this article. I feel the need to do so, because from the comments I've seen by newcomers (such as Mr. Arudou) and established Wikipedians, they either seem ignorant of the general trends regarding the need for such sections or have seen no need to explain.

The reason articles on controversial figures such as Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama do not have criticism sections is because the criticism has been integrated into the article. It is considered bad writing to have a biography where the first half says only the good stuff and then the second half says the bad stuff. I've seen the integration of criticism happening consistently across Wikipedia. I haven't looked at those particular politicians article histories, but I'm sure you'll find that periodically someone will complain on the talk page that the article has been whitewashed. The reason people usually complain about whitewashing when they don't see a criticism section, is that they don't actually bother reading the entire article. Those kinds of people come to a biography specifically to read the bad stuff about the person. They are not interested in reading a complete story of someone's life and career and seeing criticisms and supports in context of the issue they are related to. This should already be a sign that criticism sections are not good. When we design articles so that people can come specifically to read only what fits their POV, we are not doing a good job at all.

I would say there's a growing movement to eliminate such criticism sections for this and other reasons (see the essay Criticism). But such improvements only happen on the more prominent articles first. The other articles are stuck with their old-fashioned criticism sections. I say "old fashioned" because this is what people used to do. Mostly, articles would be created by fans, and every time somebody wanted to put something negative in, the fans would say, well put it in a criticism section. The fans know well that relegating stuff to a criticism section at the end is often the same as throwing something into a dust bin. They then create the main part of the article to be flattering, and most people, by the time they get to the end, see "criticism" and think, oh this guy's great but of course people are going to criticize like they always do. Thus the criticism section actually acts to lessen the impact of the criticism by shunting it aside from the "main" article. Over time, people that wanted to insert criticism forgot this is why such sections were created. When criticism sections would be merged into the main part to create a more balanced picture, such people would protest. Indeed, probably one reason they protest is that they prefer only to read and edit the negative portions of the article, thus it is more convenient for their agenda. Otherwise they would be expected to work at improving the article as a whole.

Now from this mini-history of criticism sections, let's look at this article. It seems to me originally the same scenario held here. There was a main part, which had support, and a criticism portion. Unfortunately, over time, the main part lost the support element, and the criticism section grew. This seems to be because Mr. Arudou doesn't have as many fans interested in editing his article as detractors. There were also editors that were concerned about the promotion element and worked to eliminate the more positive references while not scrutinizing the negative ones, as they should have. Basically, the system has been thrown out of wack. The criticism section is now the most prominent of all the parts of the article. Indeed, I am hard-pressed to find a single positive thing said about Mr. Arudou in this article. If I hadn't done a little reading up, I would be under the impression that nobody has viewed his actions favorably.

It is clear we need to rework this article, possibly from scratch, and using only the best sources. Those who come here with an agenda will probably not like this idea. Criticism should be merged into the main article, as done in all the best articles on Wikipedia. --C S (talk) 03:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I would also like to see the article more balanced. I think the critics do have some good points in this case, but giving them too much weight makes them look like bullies. Just the opposite of the image they would want to project, I am sure. Redddogg (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for a very thoughtful and informative post. It answers a lot of questions I had about Wikipedia.Arudoudebito (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinions section
This section's new additions come from a single-issue editor going through Debito's work and pulling out points to highlight. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that original research? Have reverted. RomaC (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. It is only when his opinion on something is noted in another reliable published source that we can mention it. Otherwise we would have to repeat everything he ever said or wrote. That's how I see it anyway. Redddogg (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't "noted in another reliable published source" include Debito claiming that the word 'gaijin' is equivalent to the word 'nigger'? His article in the Japan Times on the subject generated enough reader interest to warrant the newspaper publishing a separate 'readers response' section. Although it is the same newspaper, the 'sources' (i.e. the readers) are different. At least one of them is reliable (Paul J. Scalise is a fairly well recognised writer on Japan) and they are published (they appear in the newspaper). I think this issue, at least, should be included.--Anarmac (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on that. The gaijin-nigger argument he makes isn't some gaff that a troll found on his blog.  Quite the contrary, he got published for it, and it would fall more into the category of "actively promoted".  There should be no problem with either credibility or WP:BLP.  The "little jap" thing we were discussing above fails both of these. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 16:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur that the gaijin-nigger argument is controversial and noteworthy. I also think it should be treated in the main body of the article, as should all the entries currently in the "opinions" section. Otherwise, this section will get mired in struggles for balance etc.RomaC (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So that we don't fall into the trap of allowing choice selections of his opinions, all his opinion stuff should be merged into the article proper. For example, he obviously has a job writing columns.  We simply explain that, then give an example or two of the kind of stuff he writes.  The incident under discussion did prompt a heavy reader response, so it is an example of the kind of controversial statements Arudou is known for making.  --C S (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved everything (except one) into the rest of the article. The one thing I didn't include was the WaiWai thing.  See right below for another comment.--C S (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Debito's support of Ryan Connell relevant? It seems to me to fall under the primary research rubric mentioned here.--Anarmac (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, the support of Connell has not been referenced anywhere in a 3rd party source. I doubt anybody but Arudou detractors see this as particularly important to mention.  --C S (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well considering that what we had in the article came directly from the reference:
 * Japan rails at Australian's tabloid trash, Brisbane Times (2008-07-05)
 * Which is why I left it in there, I'm going to have to say yes, this has been referenced in a 3rd party source. Let's not get too accusative of either his supporters or detractors. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 02:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, I overlooked that. You can add it back, but I don't know where to include it.  That in itself is a sign that even if the source is legt, it's simply not worth including.  Everything else can be put in parts relevant to his writings or activism.  This is just an opinion of his that got reported once.  --C S (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, since Arudou has a pretty extensive website, we can change the title of "publications" section to "writings" and say in it that he maintains an extensive website with blog etc. Then it may be possible to include his opinion of the WaiWai thing there.  On the other hand, if we're going to describe his website and blog in an encyclopedic way, e.g. "he talks about this kind of stuff", I'm rather skeptical that we would want to include the WaiWai thing.  It gives too much weight, as I said, to an opinion of his that got reported once.  --C S (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, but if we mention his blog, does that not lead readers/editors to the conclusion that citing things like "little yellow Jap" is okay. And then won't letters like this be seen as fair game for citation? I'm all for a reference to his blog. It constitutes a large part of his activities as an activist. But won't we be opening up new cans of worms? --Anarmac (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Back to the nigger-gaijin thing here: Someone deleted it. We need a better explanation for that. His editorial was. Specifically from that: Allow me to illustrate that with a joke from the American South.

Question: "What do you call a black man with a Ph.D. in neurobiology from Harvard who works as a brain surgeon at Johns Hopkins, earns seven figures a year, and runs one of the world's largest philanthropies?"

Answer: "N--ger."

This, followed by a congruent joke with "gaijin". This was the journalistic shock value of the editorial, and that's why it ever ticked anyone off in the first place. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 02:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * it's not deleted. It is now mentioned in the context of his work for the Japan Times.  I don't know if we need a better explanation.  You seem to want a lengthier explanation, which is not better.  He wrote one column, and they had a reader response to it.  There's no need to go into a lengthy analysis which will be longer than a couple sentences.    --C S (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * People were angry because of the comparison. There was strong objection (though predictable from the outset) to equating those words together.  That's pretty much the entire point.  I'm fine with it as long as that's clear. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 13:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

References to debito.org
Probably the biggest challenge left for this article is removing the links to Arudou's personal webpage. Almost all of these references are not needed to say what we're saying. Take the appearance of his daughters, we currently link to his website, but we should reference the book itself (since their appearance is apparently relevant to the argument). See any old politician's page for an example of this. News coverage of the event would also be fine. Anything is better that what we have, pointing to a personal website. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 17:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If there aren't any online links to the material, I think it's ok to link to it. But the references themselves should be formatted correctly to indicate the original source.  --C S (talk) 01:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That makes sense. The reference is the book, whereas a powerpoint we can download is effectively a "mirror" of that information. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 02:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the main page contains 15 references to debito.org.

1. If Arudou's repeated use (6 times in English, and more times in Japanese) of the racial slur "Yellow Jap" is not included in the entry, then most (all but one) of the references to debito.org should be removed.

2. If Arudou's website for self-promotion is included in the entry, shouldn't we also include some of the several websites that are mostly or largely intended to criticize him? --Addmi (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. AFAIK that does not follow. We do not go by the number of citations so much as how the article is cited. Also self-published primary sources are treated differently than self-published third party sources
 * 2. I would most of those websites do not belong in here. There is EL which states that most blogs do not belong in the external links section. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Most people here probably remember what happened in August: After Arudou started complaining about this Wikipedia entry, an anonymous person from an IP address deleted the entire "Criticism" section. Now the entry is seriously biased, giving almost only Arudou's point of view, repeatedly citing and quoting from Arudou's website for self-promotion. As it is, the entry requires a caveat note at the very top, saying something like:
 * "This entry is largely a summary of Mr. Arudou's website, giving viewpoints and opinions favorable to Mr. Arudou. For a more balanced perspective and other views, readers are encouraged look for other websites not listed in this entry."

--Addmi (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Addmi, since there are ways to use primary source information and self-published material in manners that do not "side" with Arudou, we have chosen to carefully use material from Arudou's website. I don't think the suggested disclaimer is meaningful. We have the Japan Times controversy info posted too so the article tells people what responders believed about Arudou's idea. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Photo
Shouldn't we update his photo?--Anarmac (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We can only use free images. --C S (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's "free" in the sense of the GFDL. I don't know if there are other images of him on Wikipedia Commons, for example, but I doubt we could find a better one.  If Arudou were to license an image of his under the appropriate Creative Commons license we could use that.  --C S (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally pejorative and disparaging tone
Many sentences in this article seem to have been written in a subtly pejorative and disparaging way, in order to show Mr. Arudou in a bad light. Below are my opinions of some of these. (Overall, the quotations also seem to have been chosen to make him look bad, but I don't want to get into that.)

> he later renounced his U.S. citizenship as required by Japanese law

This seems to be trying to cast aspersions on him. Are you saying that he did it after a delay, in other words that for a period he was in violation of the law? Or that he only did it grudgingly? To make this more neutral, it could be changed to "he later renounced his US citizenship" or "he subsequently renounced his US citizenship, as required by Japanese law".

> Arudou said that he divorced his wife in September 2006

He "said"!? Well, is it true, or not? This gives the impression that people do not take his word for it - in other words, that people suspect he might be lying. (Or do you mean that he said "I divorce you" to his wife in September 2006??)

> Arudou visited the hot spring ... in order to confirm that only visibly non-Japanese people were excluded.

Even if it is true that the purpose of the visit was to experience and prove racial discrimination, this is not the point. From a neutral point of view, the main point of this paragraph should obviously be just the fact that they were excluded.

> Other protests: In 2003, Arudou dressed up as [a] seal ...

Starting the section with this seems like an attempt to make him look ridiculous. To make it more neutral, you could just omit the part about dressing up as a seal, given that it is not important. Alternatively, if you really want to keep that information, move it: "In 2003, Arudou joined a group protesting the decision by Nishi Ward, Yokohama to grant Tama-chan the seal an honorary juminhyo (residency registration), a right denied to foreign residents. For this protest he dressed up as a seal." But even this is not much better. If other people also dressed up as seals, then that should be mentioned, because it affects the impression we get.

> After meeting with police representatives at their headquarters, Arudou held a press conference, which he described as the "third-best press conference I’ve ever done".

Because of the way this sentence is written, the main impression we get is just that he made a slightly boastful-seeming comment after the press conference. (Also, until you get to the quotation itself, it is unclear whether this was something he said before, during, or after the press conference, which makes it an awkward sentence.)

To make it more neutral, it could be changed to 'Arudou met with police representatives at their headquarters and then held a press conference. He later described this as "the third-best press conference I’ve ever done".' But (on second thoughts) even this is strange - there is no other mention of press conferences in the article, and we don't even know how many other press conferences he has done in his life. So really this quotation gives us no extra useful information - it just serves to make him look boastful.

Of course, what he said itself was not boastful. But quoting it for no reason in Wikipedia gives the impression that he is boastful - or that the authors and editors of the article are biased. Joseph green (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mr. Green,
 * 1. You said: "This seems to be trying to cast aspersions on him. Are you saying that he did it after a delay, in other words that for a period he was in violation of the law? Or that he only did it grudgingly? To make this more neutral, it could be changed to "he later renounced his US citizenship" or "he subsequently renounced his US citizenship, as required by Japanese law". " - We are not implying that there was a delay. The text doesn't say what duration of time was done.
 * 2. You said: "Even if it is true that the purpose of the visit was to experience and prove racial discrimination, this is not the point. From a neutral point of view, the main point of this paragraph should obviously be just the fact that they were excluded." - I don't understand what is not neutral or wrong about saying he came back to confirm that there was a racial bias.
 * 3. We could look into that and maybe tweak the wording to see when the press conference statement was made.
 * 4. You said: "He "said"!? Well, is it true, or not? This gives the impression that people do not take his word for it - in other words, that people suspect he might be lying. (Or do you mean that he said "I divorce you" to his wife in September 2006??) " - It's kind of a compromise. Wikipedia relies mostly on third party sources (as per WP:RS) and takes cautions with primary sources (as per OR) - If we find a Japan Times article that explicitly says that Arudou divorced his wife we could take out the "Arudou said" part and leave it as is. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply:

1. The word "later" does imply that there was a delay. To make it more neutral you could change it as I suggested above or even just delete "later".

2. What is not neutral is that at present that comes across as the main point of the paragraph. If it was written neutrally, the main point of the paragraph would just be that they got excluded. It is a question of emphasis and the overall impression given by the paragraph.

3. Or, better, delete that quotation, since as I said it gives the reader zero extra useful information.

4. This seems a rather feeble reason to me. The sentence definitely gives the impression that people suspect he is lying. If it is against the rules to just state the information as a fact, surely the sentence could be reworded to avoid this. How about "Arudou divorced his wife in September 2006 [not verified from authoratitive sources]"? (And anyway, as the man says above, this information itself is irrelevant.)

5. You agree about the "dressed up as a seal" bit?

Regarding some of the above comments: I don't know who is following Wikipedia's rules more closely, but it seems clear to me that Mr. Arudou conducts himself with much more civility, sense, and good will than his attackers. I will leave it at that. Joseph green (talk) 17:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC) talk:Dids|talk]]) 14:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mr. Green:
 * 1. I decided I could remove "later"
 * 2. You said: "What is not neutral is that at present that comes across as the main point of the paragraph. If it was written neutrally, the main point of the paragraph would just be that they got excluded. It is a question of emphasis and the overall impression given by the paragraph." - I don't see how that does not fit a neutral point of view. Saying that Arudou visited again because he wanted to confirm his findings does not try to paint him a negative light, nor does this put Undue weight on that particular sentence.
 * 3. You said: "Or, better, delete that quotation, since as I said it gives the reader zero extra useful information." - IMO it could be useful to see how he himself views the particular event. I personally don't see how it makes Arudou seem boastful.
 * 4. I don't think it gives people the impression that he is lying as the language is "he said." If it was "he claimed" then it could give the impression he was lying. I think "How about "Arudou divorced his wife in September 2006 [not verified from authoratitive sources]"? " sounds funnier. Plus it is usually standard practice to mention family lives of notable people (i.e. divorces and marriages of politicians, celebrities, etc)
 * 5. It is common for protesters to wear special outfits. I think the idea that the sentence "X dressed up as a seal to protest..." is trying to insult X is reading too much into the statement.
 * Since we're talking about seals, the article says "...jūminhyō, a right denied to foreign residents" I'd argue that it is not a right, and it is not denied, it's just that the law covers the foreign population in a different manner, so as it stands it is editorialising. The main article on juminhyo is more neutral in its phrasing. Dids ([[User
 * Done. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 00:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)