User talk:Baiabogo

Soka University of America
If you are in any way connected with this university or its parent organization, I suggest that you read our policies on editing with a conflict of interest. I have reverted your last edit because it seemed to me to be, in large part, an attempt to gloss over controversies concerning the university, and to have been written from a biased POV. Please read WP:NPOV to understand the manner in which the encyclopedia should be written.

If you are employed by the university, or any entity connected with it, to edit the article, you should read WP:TOU to find our Terms of Use in regard to paid editing. As a paid editor, if you are one, you must declare your employment per that policy. Thanks, BMK (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, BMK. Thanks for your message. Based on my reading of the sources in question, my edit accurately reflects the articles and subject matter. Note that the deletions I made were regarding irrelevant personal allegations against Daisaku Ikeda and are unrelated to SUA.  Therefore, I do not believe that such allegations have a place in this article.  The topics conveyed in the material I deleted have nothing to do with SUA or Ikeda's role in founding it, and are not in any way related to the subject matter of that section, namely the two professors who complained about prejudice at the university.  Note specifically that the parts I edited were added just 4 weeks ago by an anonymous user, and are clearly negatively biased.   Since the "sources" that anonymous user added are unrelated to Soka University of America and the criticisms in that section (professors suing, etc), and since the sources themselves appear to be negatively biased, I request that you revert my proper edit.  Thank you! Baiabogo (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Anonymous editors" have as much right to edit here as anyone, and the sources are not biased, they are mainstream publications. I will not be reverting. However, you are free to re-instate the non-controversial parts of you edit, i.e. "four year liberal arts" etc. Otherwise, I suggest you read WP:BRD: When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring.  During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, BMK (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, you did not answer my question: are you connected with SUA in any way? Are you being paid for your editing here? BMK (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks BMK. No, I am not connected to SUA, and I am not being paid for editing. I've never heard of anyone being paid to edit Wikipedia.  I do, however, speak Japanese, and I can read the "sources" which you referred to as "mainstream publications".  In fact those are tabloids and their content shows they are comically biased, much like the National Enquirer.  Besides deleting those unreliable and biased foreign-language sources, I also added references to the follow-up articles by the OC Weekly from the same reporters and editor in chief regarding the controversial material in question.  So I am not sure why you would think that might be "whitewashing," when in fact it cites the same sources including more recent updates by the same journalists.  Adding more of what a writer and her editor said about a subject (already in the "status quo") is not whitewashing, it's balanced.  In any case I will accept your invitation to discuss the details on the Talk page of the article and see what the consensus is. Thanks!  Baiabogo (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think I'm wrong - and heaven knows it's happened before -- the best thing to do is to go to the article's talk page, explain as specifically as possible why you think each of the changes should be made, and see what kind of response you get. It's best to do it there, though, instead of here, so that interested editors can get involved. BMK (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And yes, unfortunately, paid editing does happen. It's an ongoing problem which the community has not yet adequately dealt with. BMK (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you BMK. I apologize if I seem cranky, but I spent a lot of time reading things on Wikipedia and all over the internet today, and carefully researched this topic (I am half Japanese and I remember the racist cover art of the OC Weekly that got them in a lot of trouble), and so I am very confident about the edits I made and the related sources, etc. I'll post my points on the article Talk page. Thanks! Baiabogo (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was one of the things that I found objectionable about your edit, since the cover of the newspaper is not the article inside, nor do the facts in the article become more or less true because of the cover. The cover is determined by an editorial process separate from the reportage, and really has no place in the SUA article -- although it could be mentioned, I suppose, in the article about the newspaper.  Citing the cover appeared to me to be an attempt to cast a negative light on the content of the article via the backdoor.  Perhaps that wasn't your intent, but that's how I read it. BMK (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Totally understand your point BMK, but that article WAS the cover article, so it was inextricably linked. It wasn't a random art choice, and the writer herself (of Chinese heritage) stated she was aware of the artwork, and didn't object to it. That got a lot of people in the local Japanese community in a big uproar about what was seen as her own racism, being "whitewashed" herself, or harping back to the old Chinese-Japanese mutual hatred, which led to questions about her bias against what some in OC saw as a "Japanese" university.  Baiabogo (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no, The article was the cover story, but the writers of the article have nothing to do with the cover, nor do the points they made become more or less valid because some people considered the cover to be racist. The editorial processes are disconnected, just as with headlines and stories in a mainstream newspaper: the headlines are not written by the reporters who wrote the story. BMK (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)