Talk:Debito Arudou/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

'Methods' and 'Publications' sections

I'm still reading and researching, but I think I don't really find the way these sections are handled to be optimal - the article reads quite well (kinda) to that point, and in my view sort of descends into an unnecessarily specific sort of tit-for-tat which seems to me to place 'undue weight' (per our policies) on the incidents referred to - can we talk about cutting them a bit, or removing them? thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

and just to be super-clear - I have studied the above pretty carefully, but chose to make this a separate section because I don't necessarily see the issue purely as a sourcing one... :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Clark's comments on the Otaru onsen lawsuit

To improve the entry, we should add (revive) the following comments by Gregory Clark.

Gregory Clark, Akita International University Vice-President, views the lawsuit as the product of "ultrasensitivity" and "Western moralizing."

• Clark, Gregory. "Destroying a Fragile Trust," Opinion, The Japan Times Online, February 12, 2001

• Clark, Gregory. "Racist banner looks frayed," Opinion, The Japan Times Online, February 17, 2005

--Addmi (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that is worthwhile. As Privatemusings points out above, this whole article has a habit of devolving into a "tit-for-tat", with more negative "tit" than positive "tat". Possibly because it is very difficult to find anything positive. But in any event, Clark and Arudou are two sides of the same unsavory coin, one with better credentials, true, but views frequently just as controversial and unpalatable as the other. Bringing the "anti-Arudou" into this BLP would just be throwing gas on a fire.Genkimon (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The first reference is problematic because it seemingly has no direct connection to Arudou and his activities. Yes, one could plausibly reason that Clark must be including Arudou among the foreigners with frivolous lawsuits, but that is your reasoning, not something he says. Thus there are WP:OR issues. The second one actually does talk about Arudou's lawsuit, although not by name. But I don't see the relevance of it to the article. Currently, we have a factual account of Arudou's lawsuit. There is no praise there to be concerned about (if you are prone to such concern) that needs to be "balanced" by some negative remarks. If you want to include Clark's remark as a criticism of the book, that doesn't make any sense, since Clark isn't reviewing or criticizing the book at all. --C S (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

All statements in the section currently are descriptions that are favorable to Arudou's views. For example, the statement, "Arudou assumed that when he returned in 2000 as a naturalized Japanese citizen, he would not be refused." is not strictly factual, because it simply states this man's alleged belief at time. Clark's crticism in his piece concerns the value of Arudou's views and tactics surrounding the lawsuit. --Addmi (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see C S's statements. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

remove the photo: The original problematic sign

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Japanese_only_sign.jpg

Japanese_only_sign.jpg‎ (394 × 190 pixels, file size: 12 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg) From debito.org.

The photo (from debito.org) is mainly decorative, and is what Arudou uses for shock value.

Now that the entire criticism section was removed (in August) from anonymous IP address, the photo validating Arudou's side should be removed as well -- to give the article better overall balance. --Addmi (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

C S said "What you and The359 want to do is the equivalent of saying the Earth article should not mention the Earth is round, because it does not discuss the modern support for Flat Earth concept which should be included to "balance" the other view. Since all the reliable sources so far praise the book, that is the "majority" viewpoint. Since nobody has yet demonstrated a reliable source that criticizes the book, a negative criticism of the book doesn't even qualify as a viewpoint. Even if you are able to demonstrate one such source, you would then have to demonstrate it is more than a "tiny-minority view"." - If you find a reliable criticism source, you may include it. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused. How on earth does the photo "validate Arudou's side"? Does anyone actually dispute there was such a sign? How does it detract from the article's "balance"? "Decorative" it may be, but that's why an image typically is included. An image doesn't have to be mind-blowing or deeply insightful to be included. People like having images to go along with the text. --C S (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove or minimize references to Arudou's children, ex-wife

It was painful to watch Arudou parade his little children in front of the TV camera as useful props in his crusade. I believe Arudou has already exploited them enough, and unless they indicate that they want to be mentioned in the entry, the references to them should be minimized.

There may also be reliabilty concerns, as the references are Arudou's subjective impressions.

References to Arudou's ex-wife should be minimized. People are more mindful of such private information according to Japanese norms. (Although I realize Arudou has been ignorant or disrespectful of such Japanese customs.) --Addmi (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alex. Even though you haven't bothered to put up a User Page on yourself (like many people on this forum -- that's why I prefer the accountability of Citizendium), your identity isn't too hard to figure out. Your continuous cyberstalking on various Internet fora reiterates these points like a mantra.

And these are the types of unsympathetic people who have been piling on and creating The Alleged Consensus on this BLP for years now? They don't seem to be quite as smart these days (it's been a case study to see how J Readings has been putting an Oxford education to good use -- persuading with subtle sophistry normally sensible people that WP's rules can be bent to the point of unapparent bias). I appreciate the assistance of other sensible people joining us here recently who are less pickled in personal contempt for the BLP. Speaking of that:

Doesn't the very top of every Talk Page say, "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."? What can we do about people like these who continuously flaunt and break Wikipedia's most fundamental rules? Again, leave these people unsanctioned at Wikipedia's peril. Arudoudebito (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

We do indeed have rules. And I'll be quite willing to put on my administrator hat and enforce them if pushed.

Addmi, nobody is interested in your personal pain experienced while watching TV. (Next time, consider changing the channel, or even pressing the "off" button. Or do what I did years ago and chuck out the boob tube.) Leave charges of exploitation to the lawyers. Here, address issues in the article, and only these issues.

Arudoudebito, I understand that you feel that you have been, and continue to be, treated injustly. I suspect that most people hereabouts understand this. Can we please take such complaints as read? If you have a specific beef, feel free to express it, but please skip the preamble to it unless it contains something that's genuinely new. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am addressing the issues in the article, and only those issues. I was not intending a "general discussion" -- rather, I was only giving a little ratinale for the proposed edit. Here is the problematic passage:

Ayako Sugawara gave birth to two daughters. Arudou described one of his children as "viewed as Japanese because of her looks" and the other as "relegated to gaijin status, same as I" because of physical appearances. [11] According to Arudou's writings, when he took his family to the Yunohana Onsen to test the rules of the onsen, the establishment stated that they would allow one girl to enter the onsen and but would have to refuse the other on the basis of their appearances. [12][13]

"gave birth to" is strange, needlessly concrete and graphic.

Because of the privacy concerns, and because the descriptions are Arudou's subjective impressions from Aldwinckle's websites, I believe all of this passage should be removed. (maybe leave only a reference to two children being involved in Arudou's career-making visit to the onsen) Please keep comments close to the editing at hand. --Addmi (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please consider this a push for people to put on their administrator hats. Even immediately after warning, we have the author engaging in general discussion of the subject (cf: maybe leave only a reference to two children being involved in Arudou's career-making visit to the onsen). Putting needles like this amidst "ratinale"s like these are still against the rules. And they've been happening in other passages too above. Let's come down on these people, already, shall we?

PS: What happened at the onsen is part of the public record, published in genuine sources. As is the photo of the onsen sign. Arudoudebito (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that Addmi was sarcastic, and unnecessarily so, with the work "career-making". Addmi, do us a favor and cut out the sarcasm.

That one word aside, Addmi's suggestion seems entirely legitimate, as does his entire comment. (This of course does not mean that it's right: it's legitimate in the sense that either side in a good debate is, or ought to be, legitimate.) Arudoudebito, do us a favor and try not to be affronted quite so easily.

Addmi, perhaps you'd like to present below your recommended replacement for the passage above. -- Hoary (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really don't get how things work here. Please explain: We have a confirmed and frequent violator of WP rules, and a call for administrative action, and instead we get an invitation for more feedback from him? Arudoudebito (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't noticed the list of confirmed violations. Your call for administrative action to "come down on these people" came after Addmi had posted a coherent request, marred by a single sarcastic word, about one part of the article. Aside from that word (itself no big deal), I see nothing offensive or deviant or disruptive about Addmi's request. If Addmi still thinks the section should be improved, I reiterate that he's welcome to suggest a specific improvement. As of course is anyone else. -- Hoary (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You still can't see it? Well, let me try to put it simply here for you: As long as somebody Trojan Horses unpermitted general discussion about the subject within what you consider to be coherent comment, they're scot-free. It's like saying as long as a politician says something coherent they can freebase while they're at it. (For those with long memories, it worked in D.C.) Or as long as somebody offers a coherent reason why, they can break the law by lynching somebody. Extreme examples, but again, I'm trying to make it simple for you. Point is, that's not how it's supposed to work in the real world, or on Wikipedia. You break the rules, you stop getting listened to, if not sanctioned.

Look, I'm sorry to be so assiduous here (and I'm addressing this to the many sensible people trying to do right by the rules), but in the end, I'm trying to show the weaknesses of this system regarding controversial issues: Unaccountability, anonymity, trollery, editing by attrition and "who dares wins", "truth" and "fact" determined by an alleged majority, and "consensus" forged by a small pond of people who interpret WP rules to their own convenience and bent. It's amounted to years of an improperly-sourced BLP here. And three months later, I still see people unable to "notice" even fundamental "violations" no matter how clearly they get pointed out.

This is, clearly, editing without good faith. There is no other conclusion to be drawn. It's a pity that after all these months and kilobytes on this page that that's the summary. Arudoudebito (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You say: I'm trying to show the weaknesses of this system regarding controversial issues. I am already well aware of the weaknesses, as I think are most of the people editing here. And being aware of them does not mean being keen either to exploit them or to allow their exploitation.

You talked earlier of confirmed violations. Where's the list of these? You've implied some new infraction. Precisely what is it? If one editor objects to a paragraph with a politeness marred by a single sarcastic word, just what is wrong about inviting him to come up with a replacement for the paragraph? If you don't want to specify some or any of this here in public, you can instead complain in private. -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the suggestion to minimize mention of Arudou's family is a good one. Arudou had earlier mentioned he would like less mention about his wife, but this was opposed. So I think it's good to now revisit that topic. --C S (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to post a draft here. Or better still edit the article directly. -- Hoary (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Subject of BLP'S suggestions for proper edits of article (Oct 20, 2008)

Hi Slim and conscientious editors. Here is how I suggest the editors change the article to make it more accurate. My corrections IN CAPS and in [brackets]. Sorry, but CAPS are easier to read in context.

Quick and dirty: If you want a finished version that I am completely happy with (vetted by an editor with a real name and a confirmer of primary sources), please see http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Arudou_Debito I wish editors would look at it, confirm as per WP rules what information is acceptable under reliable sources, and adopt as much of it as possible. Back to the current WP entry (version downloaded 8PM JST Oct 20, 2008):

EDIT: This picture of me is not copyrighted, and you may use it for the BLP.

http://www.debito.org/newself.jpg

Background

[edit]Early life Arudou was born David Christopher SCHOFILL in California in 1965[2], LATER BECOMING DAVID CHRISTOPHER ALDWINCKLE WHEN ADOPTED. He attended Cornell University, COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL IN ENGLAND, GRADUATING FROM THE FORMER WITH A DEGREE IN GOVERNMENT. HE first visited Japan as a tourist on invitation from Ayako Sugawara (菅原文子 Sugawara Ayako?) [3] [4][5], his pen pal and future wife, for several weeks in 1986. Following this experience, he dedicated his senior year as an undergraduate to studying Japanese, graduating in 1987.[6] Aldwinckle moved to Japan and taught English in Sapporo, Hokkaidō, for one year, then decided to return to university in the United States [delete TO STUDY].[2] He entered the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies (IR/PS) at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), but deferred from the program in order to return to Japan[,] and spent one year at the Japan Management Academy in Nagaoka, Niigata Prefecture. Aldwinckle married Ayako Sugawara in 1989. In 1990, he returned to California to complete his Masters of Public and International Affairs (MPIA), RECEIVING the degree in 1991.[7]

Rationale behind proposed revisions: My birth name is different. Plus my academic record is now more accurate. However, please do not accuse me (this means you in particular, "J Readings"), of trying to make this BLP into a resume. It's just a matter of record. Please note that I am trying to preserve the original text as closely as possible.

Aldwinckle then joined a small Japanese trading company in Sapporo. It was this experience, he recounts, that started him down the path of the controversial activist that he would later become. "This was a watershed in my life," Arudou writes. "… and it polarized my views about how I should live it. Although working [in Japan] made my Japanese really good — answering phones and talking to nasty, racist, and bloody-minded construction workers from nine to six — there was hell to pay every single day."[2] [INTERIM PORTIONS DELETED.] In 1993 he joined the faculty of Business Administration and Information Science at [delete] Hokkaido Information University, a private university in Ebetsu, Hokkaidō, teaching courses in BUSINESS ENGLISH AND DEBATE. As of [2008], he is an associate professor.[8]

Rationale: Delete racial harassment claim and the sentence about quitting company. The racism aspect is superfluous, already mentioned in the previous sentence, and obviously I quit the company to start work at the university. Moreover, those are the precise contents of my courses.

Japanese naturalization Aldwinckle became a permanent resident of Japan in 1996. He obtained Japanese citizenship in 2000, whereupon he changed his name to Debito Arudou (有道出人 Arudō Debito?), whose kanji he says have the figurative meaning of "a person who has a road and is going out on it." To allow his wife and children to retain their Japanese family name, he adopted the legal name Arudoudebito Sugawara (菅原有道出人 Sugawara Arudōdebito?)[5] — a combination of his wife’s Japanese name and his new transliterated full name.[9] As reasons for naturalization, he cited the right to vote, HIS ABILITY TO STAND ON HIS RIGHTS, HIS PURCHASE OF HOUSE AND PROPERTY, HIS FEELING THAT HE ALREADY WAS LIVING IN JAPAN LIKE ANY OTHER CITIZEN AND TAXPAYER, AND HIS OVERALL LIKE OF JAPAN;[2] he renounced his U.S. citizenship in 2002 as required by Japanese law.[10]

Rationale: Those are the reasons given on my website and at various junctures and speeches. I'm telling you that's what they were. I don't see how you can argue against them, so please include them as such. Anything less than this makes the reader think I naturalized just because I wanted to fight for my rights, like a troublemaker. That is wrong and misrepresentative. I decided to naturalize back in 1997, long before the Otaru Onsens Case came up.

Family and divorce

Ayako Sugawara gave birth to two daughters. Arudou described one of his children as "viewed as Japanese because of her looks" and the other as "relegated to gaijin status, same as I" because of physical appearances. [11] According to Arudou's writings AND MEDIA SOURCES, when he TRIED TO ENTER Yunohana Onsen IN OTARU WITH HIS FAMILY AND OTHER FAMILIES, the establishment stated that they would allow one girl to enter the onsen and but would have to refuse the other on the basis of their appearances. [12][13]

Rationale: As written above, we did not go to "test the rules of the onsen" like a bunch of troublemakers. We went there as a family -- with four other international families and a total of seventeen people -- to take a bath. We did not know we would get exactly that kind of a reception, particularly the refusal of one of my children. There are other cases I've written about where at that onsen, a European mother and her Japanese-European daughters were also refused, although that's probably too much information to fit into this short paragraph. In any case, the point is 1) we did not go alone, and 2) we went there as customers, not as mere "testers".

Arudou and his wife divorced in September 2006.[14] Following their divorce, Arudou petitioned the Sapporo Family Court to have his ex-wife’s family name, "Sugawara" removed from his koseki. The court granted the request and his name was officially changed to Arudou Debito in November 2006.[14]

Rationale: I have not edited this paragraph because it is not inaccurate. However, as a spin coming so abruptly at the end of this section, it makes the subject look like a snake who used his kids as guinea pigs then divorced his wife when he'd gotten all that he could out of them. Utterly false. Our divorce is (naturally) a lot more complicated than that (more here if you really want http://www.debito.org/thedivorce.html), and I don't see how it is all that germane to my human rights work. I wish this section could be written with less of a potentially misconstruable bent.

Activism

NOTE: Again, I like the summary of the Otaru Onsens Case found up at Citizendium far better. I wish an editor would look and confirm as per WP rules what information is acceptable under reliable sources and adopt as much here as possible. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Arudou_Debito

[edit] Otaru onsen lawsuit The original problematic sign Arudou was one of three plaintiffs in a racial discrimination lawsuit against […] Yunohana Onsen in Otaru, Hokkaidō. Yunohana maintained a policy to exclude non-Japanese patrons; the business stated that it implemented the policy after INEBRIATED Russian sailors PUT OFF patrons from PATRONIZING one of its other facilities. After reading an e-mail posted to a mailing list digest complaining of Yunohana's policy in 1999,[15] Arudou visited the hot spring (onsen), along with a GROUP OF SEVENTEEN Japanese, White, and East Asian friends, CONFIRMING that only visibly non-Japanese people were BEING excluded.[16]

Rationale: "Scared away patrons" is too strong. They didn't want to take baths with Russians, managers said, because they were smelly, noisy, drunk, and unmannerly. Not that they were "scary". I add "inebriated" here because the same phenomenon is mentioned below. This is the better juncture to mention it.

Also, "in order to confirm" makes it sound like we went there to make trouble. No. We went there to take a bath. As I wrote above. In any case, we did confirm the practice, so I suggest the above wording as a decent compromise.

WHEN Arudou […] returned TO YUNOHANA in 2000 as a naturalized Japanese citizen, HE WAS AGAIN refused. The manager accepted that Arudou was a Japanese national but STILL refused HIM entry[,] on the grounds that his foreign appearance could cause existing Japanese customers to assume the onsen was admitting foreigners. [DELETE, e.g. inebriated Russian sailors said to be causing problems in that locality, and take their business elsewhere.][17]

Rationale: I don’t see how my assumptions about being refused or not are materiel. I went. I was refused. Those are the facts of the case. As for grounds for being refused, I was told that day by the manager that my being let in would cause "misunderstandings". Adding the section about inebriated Russian sailors should be done in an earlier paragraph in this WP entry, as I have done above.

[Arudou and two co-plaintiffs, Kenneth Lee Sutherland and Olaf Karthaus, in February 2001 then sued Yunohana on the grounds of 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 Yunohana to pay the plaintiffs 1 million JPY each (about $25,000 United States dollars in total) in damages.[18] The court stated that "refusing all foreigners without exception is 'unrational discrimination' [that] can be said to go beyond permissible societal limits." [19] The Sapporo High Court dismissed Arudou's claim against the city of Otaru for failing to create an anti-discrimination ordinance; the court ruled that the claim did not have merit.[20] The Sapporo High Court upheld these rulings on September 16, 2004[21] and the Supreme Court of Japan denied review on April 7, 2005.[20]]

[DELETE WHOLE PARAGRAPH. THE SUMMARY OF THE JURISPRUDENCE IS AWFUL. SEE BETTER ONE AT

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Arudou_Debito

Other protests In 2003, Arudou JOINED A GROUP DRESSING up as SEALS WHEN Nishi Ward, Yokohama ISSUED "Tama-chan", A SEALION, AN honorary jūminhyō (residency registration). AS JUMINHYO ARE LIMITED TO JAPANESE CITIZENS, THE GROUP RAISED AWARENESS OF THE ISSUE, CALLING FOR FOREIGN RESIDENTS TO BE REGISTERED THE SAME AS TAMA-CHAN.[22]

Rationale: We were not protesting that Tama-chan got a Juuminhyou. We were celebrating it--saying congratulations etc. Then we said we wanted one too. That was the tack we took. Incorporate that above more concisely if you need.

In February 2007, Arudou protested against the book Kyōgaku no Gaijin Hanzai Ura File - Gaijin Hanzai Hakusho 2007 (Secret Foreigner Crime Files). [23] Arudou posted a bilingual letter for readers to take to FamilyMart stores protesting against "discriminatory statements and images about non-Japanese residents of Japan."[24]

[No edit necessary.]

In June 2008, Arudou lodged a complaint with the Hokkaidō Prefectural Police, claiming that its officers were targeting foreigners as part of a security sweep prior to the 34th G8 summit in Tōyako, Hokkaidō.[25] This followed an incident where Arudou asserted his right under the Police Execution of Duties Law to not need to show identification when requested by a police officer at New Chitose Airport. After meeting with police representatives at their headquarters, Arudou held a press conference covered by LOCAL MEDIA.[26]

Rationale: Every Sapporo TV station (NHK, STV, UHB, HTB, HBC, and TVH) and all the major newspapers attended (Asahi, Mainichi, Yomiuri, Kyodo, and others) attended the press conference, and most did articles where it was at least mentioned in passing. The reason why the one TV station was mentioned above was in conjunction with "this being the third best press conference I've ever done" (sourcing my blog), and putting that there to make it seem like I was giving a party and nobody came. Only one TV broadcast has surfaced online (STV), but that's not because it's the only one. Quite the contrary. So just say "local media" and leave it at that. http://www.debito.org/?p=1763

BTW, THERE ARE PLENTY MORE PROTESTS YOU CAN MENTION HERE:

http://www.debito.org/TheCommunity/communityissues.html

DIG AROUND HERE TOO, STARTING FROM:

http://www.debito.org/publications.html#CITATIONS

[edit] Methods Arudou maintains an active online presence, including a blog.

Alex Kerr, author of the book Dogs and Demons has criticised Arudou for his "openly combative attitude", an approach that Kerr thinks usually "fails" in Japan and may reinforce the conservative belief "that gaijin are difficult to deal with". Nevertheless, he comments that "perhaps we who live here are slow to stick our necks out...and quick to self-censor...to get along....". He also sees Arudou's decision to naturalise as bringing "the dialogue inside Japan. His activities reveal the fact that gaijin and their gaijin ways are now a part of the fabric of Japan's new society."[27]

[No edit necessary. Finally, Kerr is quoted properly.]

Publications Arudou has written a book about the 1999 Otaru hot springs incident. Arudou originally wrote the book in Japanese; the 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 revised in 2006. The book is listed in the Japan Policy Research Institute's recommended library on Japan. Jeff Kingston (Temple University Japan), in a review for The Japan Times, described the book as an "excellent account of his struggle against prejudice and racial discrimination."[28]

[No edit necessary]

Arudou's THIRD book was coauthored with Akira Higuchi (樋口 彰 Higuchi Akira?) and titled Handbook for Newcomers, Migrants and Immigrants to Japan (ニューカマー定住ハンドブック?). This was a bilingual book, which provided information on visas, starting businesses, securing jobs, resolving legal problems, and planning for the future from entry into Japan to death. Donald Richie of The Japan Times said that out of the guides for new residents in Japan, Handbook was the fullest and consequently the best.[29]

Rationale: As I have said elsewhere on this Talk Page, JO in English and JO in Japanese are two different books. Different ISBNs, different lengths, different publication dates (by years), different topics covered in many places, very different intended audiences. So HANDBOOK is my third book, if we are not including my textbooks. Please render it as such.

Arudou has also written pieces for the on-line academic website Japan Focus and had his work published by the Japan Policy Research Institute.[…][30]

Rationale: Don't need "which later placed his article online when it moved to a web format". It's irrelevant.

Arudou writes a guest column, "Just Be Cause", for The Japan Times. In August 2008, Arudou drew an analogy between the words "gaijin" and "nigger", arguing that the status of "gaijin" as politically incorrect was well deserved.[31] This prompted a large reader response, with most of the published responses finding the analogy inappropriate.[32] This process was repeated roughly one month later, when Arudou wrote another article standing by his original statement.[33] Again, most published responses were critical of the analogy.[34][35] HE HAS SINCE COME OUT WITH A THIRD COLUMN ON THE "GAIJIN" ISSUE, DESCRIBING BY EXTENSION HOW THE "INSIDER/OUTSIDER" PHENOMENON IS HURTING JAPAN'S RURAL AREAS. [36 = http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20081007ad.html]

Rationale: I don't see why we need so much information on the criticisms, but if we do, we need the third column to complete the series on "gaijin". However, I expect to see plenty more controversy engendered by my future columns, so if we're going to devote this much space to these two (or three), we're going to soon see the WP entry becoming bottom-heavy with critiques of my columns. Your call, but I doubt this focus sustainable. I suggest just mentioning that I am a columnist at the JT and provide a link to my articles there: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/JTsearch5.cgi?term1=Debito%20Arudou&term2=fl-all

That's all. Thanks in advance for your considerate editing. Arudoudebito (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It was me who added the green background. (And not Arudoudebito. I hope he doesn't mind this cosmetic tampering with his input.) I did this as a way to dissuade others from inserting comments and suggestions, which, however well intentioned, would probably soon lead to great confusion about who it was that wrote what. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As a note, because both Wikipedia and Citizendium are under the GNU, we can copy paragraphs word for word from one to the other WhisperToMe (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Perphas two facts can be confirmed and then included into this or later passage: (1) The onsen was 4 hours away (by train?) from where Arudou lived at the time. (There were many onsens near where Arudou lived.) (2) The trip was funded by Tony Laszlo's organization ISSHO KIKAKU. These facts seem much more important than the trivial details that are currently in the article. --Addmi (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Addmi, two comments, unrelated to each other, on this comment of yours. ¶ First, I moved the comment from out of the area that I have since given a green background; as I thought that its positioning there, however well intended, would likely lead to confusion. ¶ Secondly, even on the talk page, don't present unsourced "facts" for which you appeal for evidence. If you have good evidence (see WP:RS) for some assertion, make that assertion, with the evidence. If you're sure you remember some "fact" correctly but have forgotten which credible source stated it, then (re-)locate the source by yourself before presenting the "fact". Now, if this were the talk page of, say, Sicilian Baroque, you'd be welcome to come up with some interesting but hazily remembered factoid, appealing to other editors for supporting evidence; however, unlike Sicilian baroque, Debito Arudou is a living person (so "WP:BLP" applies), and furthermore a person who, your editing history suggests, obsesses you. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the number of books, why don't we simply sidestep the issue and simply say that Arudou wrote the English and Japanese versions of Japanese Only (to make it clear that Arudou did not only write one version) and the book with Akira Higuchi? We don't say X number of books, so we let the reader decide how that counts. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to sound impatient, but it's been a week and I've already pointed out a number of clear inaccuracies (such as my birth name). Could we have some edits, please? Arudoudebito (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what to do. The commonsense approach would just be to stick the information in. After all, we know that you're you, the information isn't contentious or self-serving; all in all, there's no downside. The trouble will come if/when somebody reads it and notices that there's not a murmur of Schofill at "morebackground.html" or perhaps any other source, other than for Wikipedia and its commercial scrapes and derivatives. (No, there's no mention of it -- yet, anyway -- in the Citizendium article.) Without this external backup, I'd be quite willing to rewrite the relevant part of the article as:

Arudou was born David Christopher Schofill in California in 1965, later becoming David Christopher Aldwinckle when adopted.

But I'd then feel compelled to back up that assertion with a ghastly note such as the following:

This [possible addition here: and a small amount of other information in this article, marked below,] was directly contributed by Arudou to the editors of this article. Arudou contributed this information as the editor Arudoudebito (confirmed to be him). He revealed his name on October 19, 2008. (See edit.)

Perhaps the wording of that could be improved, but I do think that something like it would be necessary. Now, I don't actually want to add it or anything like it, as it's longwinded, labored and pedantic, and somehow carries a quite unnecessary stink of deep suspiciousness, and unless read carefully would give the wrong impression that the subject of the article had been rewriting it.

Could you please add the info to morebackground.html? Then the article could simply cite that, and there'd be no need for mutterings about this or that information having been proffered by Arudoudebito, and how Arudoudebito wasn't an imposter. -- Hoary (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Arudou, you said: "Rationale: Delete racial harassment claim and the sentence about quitting company. The racism aspect is superfluous, already mentioned in the previous sentence, and obviously I quit the company to start work at the university. Moreover, those are the precise contents of my courses." - If this is the same company referred to here [1] - It seems like this experience could still be relevant. I found the quote "After I nearly got sick and they started doing things that no Japanese superiors would ever do to their subordinates (like threatening to fire me for any minor infraction--even for coming to work in sneakers!-- kicking me in public, and calling my wife and asking her out!), my wife gave me permission to leave the company. So after a total of 15 months of tanren, I quit (technically, I got them to fire me so I could receive shitsugyou hoken) on Christmas Day 1992. There's even a Hokkaido Shinbun article on this experience here in Japanese." in that page, so we could reference the Hokkaido Shinbun article as well. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The harassment I faced in that company was also covered in the Hokkaido Shinbun article as well, but it didn't take the tack that it was racially motivated. Cite it if you like -- it's more citable than my morebackground.html page anyway. I was just saying the sentences as originally rendered in the BLP were superfluous, not objecting to any contents.

As for the Schofill fact of the case, I've added the information to the morebackground.html page. It seems a rum backwards justification for inclusion of information, but I understand that's the best thing to do under WP rules. Done. Arudoudebito (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Arudou! :) - That has now been included. Anyway I'll look at some of the other entries here. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

nominate for deletion

seems as if this article is merely a self-aggrandizing article about a person of no real significance. Can anyone besides mr. arudou form a cogent argument otherwise? 97.87.51.94 (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:N bridies (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"of no real significance" - I'm not sure why you think that. Perhaps you should form your own cogent argument to convince the rest of us. However, the reality is that he has a presence not only on the internet, but also in many Japanese people's minds. During my year of research here in Japan, I've found that Arudou Debito is just as well known for his unique status in Japan as C.W. Nikoru among the common people. Most Caucasians who are interested enough in Japan also know of him. His book concerning the onsen incident is also available in college libraries here in Japan. I see no reason to delete this article. 210.253.243.157 (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I also feel this article is at least overly long for a man who teaches English and was told off at a bath house. Especially the part dealing with how he grew up and how he arrived in Japan is not very interesting nor relevant. I agree it sort of smells of being autobiographic. Southsailor (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

To 210.253.243.157 (sock puppet?): No, Debito is not well known among "common" Japanese people. In fact, very few Japanese people know of him at all. Granted he is notorious among *Western* ex-pats in Japan, but public awareness of him outside of a very small circle is almost nil. Your twelve month exchange student program would not give you enough information to make such claims. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I might be wrong because at the moment I don't think it's worth looking up, but I am pretty sure that notability, as it pertains to Wikipedia, does not rely solely on the percentage of name recognition in the general populous. Take a look at wp:note. (signing this comment by User:Statisticalregression)

To the IP editor opened the section -- a Talk page is not the place to nominate an article for deletion. If you want to pursue that please go to WP:AFD and proceed from there. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 06:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason why Arudou had notability is because of the myriad of reliable sources (newspaper articles, etc) written about him and his campaign. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I have never heard of him until now when I found a link from the Wikipedia article on 2channel. I don't believe him to be WP:NOTABLE. The article also seems too biased in favor of Mr. Arudou. 130.101.167.101 (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Debito_Arudou (2008) ended in a keep.

"I have never heard of him until now when I found a link from the Wikipedia article on 2channel." - There are many subjects which one has never heard of until he or she finds out about them later, and yet they have Wikipedia articles.

"I don't believe him to be WP:NOTABLE." - You need to explain why, after you read and consider the failed AFD

"The article also seems too biased in favor of Mr. Arudou. " You need to explain why, after you read the existing discussion.

You need to explain your rationales. Simply saying "it is biased" will not get one anywhere.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a tough call. My initial reaction, even before coming to this talk page, was that Arudou is not significant enough to have a Wikipedia article written about him. But I think one thing in favor of notability is the number of articles he has had published in The Japan Times. Although Arudou does love to pick fights with Japanese society, he has hit on a nerve. In essence, there is a mini-Arudou inside every foreigner living in Japan. It doesn't come out as blatantly as with Arudou, but it is there. As another comparison, you might ask why there is a Wikipedia article about Jake Adelstein, but then there should not be one about Arudou. I could argue that Arudou is as notable as Adelstein, perhaps in some ways more notable. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section

Large number of well referenced criticism had been deleted. I have reverted it. Vapour (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing content referencing "debito.org"

Debito.org is a blog. Blogs are not considered reliable sources. So why is so much of debito's wikipedia entry referencing content from his blog? If it can't be backed up by a reliable third party then it shouldn't be part of this page. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• But it is his own blog. Therefore it would be a primary source, which is covered here: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• I know you're pretty pro-Debito, WTM, so I'm not going to argue with you. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:No personal attacks clearly says "As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." - Also I do not perceive myself to be pro-Arudou. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I noticed this edit summary referring to Wikipedia:SELFPUB#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves - The summary does not explain why. Which sections of the article are you reffering to? Which of the five points are you referring to? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Japanzine

is Japanzine a real publication? in the Reference Links section there's a link to an article that supposedly originated from it but was published on seekjapan.jp

There's a WP article about Japanzine that looks like some kind of spoof, click on some of the contributors......there's one that died in 1841

Anyone know more? I don't think that link belongs there

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Statisticalregression (talk • contribs) 06:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Other comments

The section saying reader response to his article on "gaijin vs nigger" was negative seems to be more opinion than fact. After reading the cites sources for that statement, my impression was the response was quite mixed. Most was actually either in support of his point or speculating whether it was intentionally eyebrow-raising in order to draw attention to the issue. To say reader response was negative is to disregard the issue raised in the piece entirely, which I think anyone familiar with the issue will agree is not appropriate. Furthermore, citing individual reader responses to the article hand-picked to support the view of negative reader response as evidence for such a broad public consensus on the appropriateness of the article is at best misleading when there are clearly other letters with just the opposite point of view.

I propose rewording this statement so it is more representative of the ongoing debate regarding the merits of his argument and indeed the use of the term "gaijin" in general, and updating citations 37, 39 and 40 to point to the main "reader response" page rather than to individual letters within the group. This will allow readers to make their own judgment on the merits of Arudou's point as well as the public response to it.

68.50.174.124 (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is probably a case where we'll have to let verifiability trump "truth". On the forums I read at the time, the response was mostly strongly opposed to the article; those forums, even if I could find them, wouldn't be reliable sources, though. Then again, maybe (almost certainly), I read forums with a pre-disposed bias among responders. I think the change is appropriate based on the sources we have. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole section should go as WP:OR. All the citations given here are opinion columns/editorials/letters to the editor. Unless there are some secondary sources reporting on the incident and suggesting that this is a notable part of his life and career, it does not have a place here per WP:BLP. --Slp1 (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Addition of comments from about over a year ago

Okay, first, it's generally not acceptable to go back to edits from 2009, and say "no consensus for the change, reverting" (as the first user did). The very fact that the edit has been in the article for more than a year indicates consensus. Now, of course, consensus can change, so there's nothing wrong with trying a new edit for a specific reason, as the second editor did. However, I believe that the reason for the removal still stands--it's a direct violation of WP:NPOV, and specifically, WP:DUE, to include so much negative information in an article of this length. The existence of such a large criticism section strongly implies that the primary response to Debito's work is negative. Now, I'm certainly no Debito fan, but it is definitely inaccurate for this article to characterize responses to him as primarily negative. Some reaction has been negative, to be sure, so that's why we need a Critcism section (although, ideally, we'd integrate that into the rest of the text). But we should not have such a long criticism section without due cause. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is debito contributing to his own article?

Not only is he attempting to rewrite the article to spin himself in a more positive light, but if you look at the edits performed during 2006 (hit the "Earliest" link on the history page, then view the first few pages), you can see a couple of examples of his own pompous prose, [i]coming from IP addresses in ISPs in Sapporo[/i].

16:50, 2 January 2006 61.27.54.213 (talk) (Deleting Detractors section. All activists have detractors and this adds nothing to the entry.) (undo)

Why is this guy permitted to influence the article about him to such an extent? If I get famous, can I start dropping hints on how to [i]rewrite the whole frikkin' article?[i] 222.149.75.88 (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy on biographies (see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help for a clear reference), it is acceptable for living people to edit their own pages. They must follow the same standards that anyone else must (NPOV, sourcing, no edit wars, etc.), but beyond that they are as entitled as any other editor to make changes to their own page. I am personally not a particular fan of Mr. Debito, but so long as his edits are made in good faith with proper sourcing, they are acceptable. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

But many of his edits *are* bad faith edits, meaning that if they make him look even the slightest bit bad, he'll delete them...sourced or not. For example, he doesn't want anyone outside his area to know that he lost his job at his university and mass emails people on the Hokkaido listservs to threaten anyone from Hokkaido that edits this page with negative information on him saying that he's going to track them down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.211.83 (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section must return.

There's been alot of times in which the criticism section has been removed. Some how I think Debito is doing this unable to take it. In the past this Wikipedia page has contained nessisary amount of information regarding to the critcism section. Now only Alex Kerr's comment remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 03:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I can live with the section there begin called "Criticism", since that's basically what that paragraph is. You probably shouldn't expand the section, though without first discussing here, because there was a strong consensus to leave it out. Furthermore, WP:NPOV requires that our article be neutral and only give due weight to any opinions included. Please note that this is not Debito taking out the information--this is editors who believe that Wikipedia policy trumps whatever personal opinions people have. So, if you have suggestions for what should be added, post them here, and we can consider them, but make sure that they are well-sourced and of enough importance to be included. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

On the other side of that, the SOURCED information shouldn't be removed without discussion either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.211.83 (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Qwyrxian, you say that the editors removed many of the referances in the criticism before. However I've heard that it was Debito himself that asked for such referances to be removed as mentioned here: http://www.japanprobe.com/2008/08/25/criticism-removed-from-debito-arudou-wikipedia-entry/

If possible I would like to put more information about debito's criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 23:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of the history of the article; however, it was not Debito's request that caused it to be removed. Rather, his request caused Wikipedia editors to take a closer look at the information, and they (this was before I was editing the article actively) agreed that the information was badly sourced (most references didn't meet WP:RS, the info overall didn't meet WP:DUE). There are many times on WP when subjects of articles ask for criticism about them to be removed. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't; ideally, though, the actual decision of whether or not to remove the criticism hinges on our policies and guidelines. Subjects of BLPs are welcome to work with us, and we do take care not to harm them (see WP:BLP), but community consensus usually trumps subject desires (again, there are a few, very rare exceptions, and this was not one of them). If there are specific sources of information that you think should be added, please provide them, and we can look at them. It would be best if they weren't just the same ones as before, but if you somehow think you can get consensus to change on those sources, you can raise them again and check. Note that the sources you recommend must be reliable, so things like tepido or even japanprobe don't count (though sometimes the embedded video in japanprobe counts as reliable, if the place they took it from was reliable; just not the commentary by the moderators or forum comments). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I do have a few referances that I would like to add. This one mentions him attempting to search for trouble. http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/rc20080706a3.html This link mentions how Debito makes baised exagerrated claims. http://www.japanreview.net/interview_neff.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 16:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The Japan Times article is from the Opinion section, which means it's not suitable for any factual claims, and, unless Lance Braman is a particularly notable person with high notability in the field of Japanese-Gaijin issues, then his opinion isn't important enough to include (see WP:UNDUE). The other link looks like it's probably a reliable source, given the bios of the site authors; the question, though, is what could you say? Bsaically, about the only thing I could imagine saying is something like "Robert C. Neff, a foreign reporter and business executive living in Japan, believes that Arudou's complaints about Japanese onsen are generally exaggerating, stating that he has personally stayed at over 200 onsen in Japan." That statement also seems to border on being WP:UNDUE, because it's really just the opinion of one particular business person in Japan. Was there some other way of saying it that you think might be more due? Am I missing something in the article? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Will do. I've added the latter link to the critism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs)

I've reverted. First, Neff does not say that Arudou exaggerates (I shouldn't have used that term above) or falsifies (that's not in there at all) inforrmation; all he actually says is that Arudou is focusing on a very narrow area which is not representative of his own (Neff's) experiences. Additionally, we don't want such a long quote. This was my point above--if you read that sentence carefully, it really says very little of substance about Arudou, and why I don't see how this can really go in. At most, I think you could say, "Robert C. Neff, a foreign reporter and business executive living in Japan, has said that he feels that Arudou's campaign doesn't accurately represent the situation of onsen's in Japan, and instead represents problem particular to onsens in Hokkaido that have had problems with 'drunken Russians'." Will that be okay? Just to clarify something: Neff saying that Arudou has a "faux campaign" does not mean that he thinks Arudou is lying (falsifying); rather, it means that the campaign isn't legitimate (false), because it isn't actually a problem across wider Japan. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert C. Neff published a book entitled Japan's Hidden Hot Springs. The amazon.com link to Neff's book is: http://www.amazon.com/Japans-Hidden-Springs-Robert-Neff/dp/0804819491. In the interview, Neff states that he "bathed and/or stayed at well over 200 onsen establishments and been stopped only once." Based on his extensive experience with Japanese hotsprings in preparing for his book, he finds Arudou Debito's campaign to be "faux" as it does not reflect a systematic problem with Japanese hotsprings. It seems appropriate to add one sentence for Neff's view as Former Tokyo Bureau Chief of BusinessWeek and book author on Japanese hotsprings that is both factually correct and relevant to the Otaru Onsen case and Debito Arudou. Oddexit (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten so that it summarizes more, has a shorter quote, and accurately represents exactly what Arudou says. Note that nothing in that interview says that Arudou's campaign is "false" or "exaggerating"; "faux" means "fake", and Neff himself explains why this is (as Oddexit said above, and I explained in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I hadn't seen the earlier archive discussions from 2008; in those discussions, there was a pretty good consensus that japanreview.net is not a reliable source. So in order to include that information, you'll have to challenge that consensus. You may want to consider the reliable sources noticeboard. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying: unless someone can demonstrate that japanreview.net is a reliable source, since it was decided a while ago that it is not, that information must be removed per WP:V. If the IP adding is reading this page, please stop and discuss here. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Re Activism/Criticisms sections: If contributors will cite critics in long or full quotes, Mr. Arudou's arguments should also be quoted more fully. For example, the "Mr. James" protest has a sourceable article in the Japan Times with Mr. Arudou's arguments that could be quoted more fully, but it's the critics (Coco Masters, Simon Houpt) who get longer citations. Suggest fix for balance.68.146.22.92 (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Debito Arudou vs. Gaijin Hanzai

An anonymous IP and another editor continually insist on deleting a small reliably sourced, verifiable paragraph presented in NPV. No one can deny that Debito Arudou was involved in these activities or that the facts presented in the small paragraph are correct using reliable sources for a WP:BLP, so the questionable excuse of WP:UNDUE is briefly used to rationalize its deletion without first discussing on the talk page how one small paragraph is UNDUE or why these 2 editors insist it must be deleted. This is unfortunate. I've restored the reliably sourced material until a clear rationale is presented. Oddexit (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I just wasn't clear. I (at least, I can't speak for the IP editor beyond what is in xyr edit summary) object to the following sentences: "Published by Eichi Shuppan, Inc. from January 2007 and sold in convenience stores and mainstream bookstores across Japan, the one-off glossy 128-page magazine devoted over 100 photographs, numerous articles, and manga-style comic strips to highlight alleged crimes committed by foreigners in an effort to "broaden the debate" and "take up a contemporary problem", according to the publisher" and "Upon reviewing the matter, Japan's third-largest convenience-store chain pulled the magazine from its shelves, citing the publication's "inappropriate racial expressions."[26] Eichi Shuppan, Inc. editor Shigeki Saka defended the magazine, arguing that it was not racist.[27] Responding to his critics in Metropolis Magazine, Saka feared for his life, stating that he had been "subject to a campaign of harassment," received emails issuing death threats, and that an "army of bloggers" had "bullied Family Mart convenience stores into removing Gaijin Hanzai Ura Fairu from their shelves decid[ing] for everyone else that this book is so dangerous that it cannot be read."[28] Responding to Saka's "exceptional and spirited" defense". I don't like the continuation of that last sentence, though I could perhaps live with it. The problem with all of that material is that it isn't about Debito Arudou. It's about the book, not about Arudou's reaction to it. That information is in Kyōgaku no Gaijin Hanzai Ura File – Gaijin Hanzai Hakusho 2007, where it belongs. Putting it here is definitely WP:UNDUE (because it's including information only tangentially related to the subject of the article), and borderline coatracking, because it's attempting to use this article as a vessel to further Arudou's opinions about the book. I request that you self-revert. I see that you are new to Wikipedia (at least under this named account), and so may understand, but once you are reverted by multiple people, it is time to stop reverting yourself and go to the talk page. The rule is not "start a discussion on the talk page, but keep reverting anyway". Furthermore, you're also misunderstanding our rules about verifying info. Just because a statement is verified (i.e., supported by a reliable source) does not mean it belongs in every single article that is somewhat related to the topic. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The 3-revert rule was designed to get editors who wanted to delete sections of reliably sourced material in an article to talk about their concerns on the talk page before unilaterally acting, not act and then claim that the burden of observance only fall on someone else. It's unfortunate that my additional link to the separate article has prompted this attitude. That aside, a few thoughts:

1. coatracking is simply an essay. It carries no real authoritative weight in this discussion.

2. The only substantive comment (and one with which I disagree) is to argue that Debito Arudou's opinions have no place in this article. This will comes as news to the subject of the article, and -- more importantly -- the journalists who wrote about his activities.

3. Debito Arudou is not a famous intellectual whose opinions and comments merit separate articles based on the journalistic and academic coverage of each branch subject. But sometimes -- rare as those moments may be -- multiple journalists find his random activities/opinions fit to print in reliable third-party publications. It is *those* moments that merit inclusion in this article.

4. Once those rare moments of notable activities/opinions are covered in the article, we are obligated to follow the rules of Wikipedia. His opinion was presented in a short one or two sentence excerpt. It was reinforced by either a reliable third-party publication or an academic journal (as per the rules of Wikipedia). Further, the opinion was balanced out per WP:NPV to give the reader a short-and-to-the-point idea of what happened.

5. No one is suggesting that the Gaijin Hanzai section suddenly degenerate into multiple lengthy paragraphs of tangential material and commentary about the book. And, in fact, it wasn't. Yet reading the cryptic subject headers of the three editors, you would think that's exactly what happened.

6. I would respectfully ask the 3 editors who insist on deleting the reliably sourced material to re-think their position, or we'll be forced to revisit this issue at some point. Oddexit (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The content -which obviously wasn't removed unilaterally- is exactly "tangential material and commentary about the book" and doesn't belong here, whether it's one paragraph or several. bridies (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced based on both the structure of the paragraph and the rules of Wikipedia. Simply repeating your assertion is not a compelling argument. Oddexit (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The three of us are saying that the amount of information that was there before is not appropriate for this article. That's a pretty straightforward position, and has very little to do with why Arudou is or isn't notable. After re-reading the information, I still agree with removal of the bulk of that, because it wasn't about Arudou, it was about the book itself. However, like I said, I'd be willing to compromise on the very end of the last sentence. However, if you would prefer to argue that the whole of it remain, you're more than welcome to pursue dispute resolution, perhaps either with a request at WP:NPOVN or WP:BLPN (neither board fits exactly, but both overlap with this issue partially), or with an RfC. I'm happy to participate in any of those processes, and will accept the inclusion of the information if consensus supports it. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Following this logic, we should remove all of the reliably sourced information on Arudou's activities and their background because "it's not about Arudou." Should we do that? Of course not. That would be bizarre and not helpful to the reader. And once again, no one is talking about the "notability" of Arudou. We are talking about the "notability of Arudou's opinions" as determined by the number and location of reliably sourced third-party publications and academic journals in the context of a minor activist/columnist in Japan. These are two entirely different things. And yes, it might ultimately have to go to some form of dispute resolution because I remain unconvinced. Oddexit (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian already laid out the argument pretty much as I would. Bar the last sentence, which I agree could be compromised upon, it's redundant, tangential, reads badly and is a WP:UNDUE violation (small though it may be). bridies (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"Reads badly"? Excuse me, Bridies? Now you are just being deliberately insulting and unhelpful. Oddexit (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2011

Hardly. It reads badly because it goes into enough detail to appear tangential but not enough to give any real idea of the event, feels tacked on and leaves the reader wondering about the balance of opinion. None of which is helped by the fact it's constructed by a few strung together quotes. But whatever, even if it were well-written it would still be extraneous. bridies (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced. Bridies' argument sounds contrived and ad hoc to me. I put the link to the main article in order to aid the reader with further details, as has been done with countless biographies on Wikipedia that follow the same format. One small paragraph using reliable sources to present a balanced snapshot of Arudou's third-party documented role and the documented reaction to it is hardly "extraneous"; it's required. The way the paragraph reads now is unhelpful and unbalanced given the plethora of reliable sources on the subject of Arudou's involvement and aftermath. Oddexit (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oddexit, I'll try one more time, and I'll go through sentence by sentence:

• "Published by Eichi Shuppan, Inc. from January 2007 and sold in convenience stores and mainstream bookstores across Japan, the one-off glossy 128-page magazine devoted over 100 photographs, numerous articles, and manga-style comic strips to highlight alleged crimes committed by foreigners in an effort to "broaden the debate" and "take up a contemporary problem", according to the publisher." That's not Arudou's opinion. It's not about Arudou's opinion. It's not about Arudou. It's about the book. It's extraneous background information better covered in the main article (which, as you point out, is properly linked).
• "Upon reviewing the matter, Japan's third-largest convenience-store chain pulled the magazine from its shelves, citing the publication's "inappropriate racial expressions."" I haven't read the IHT article (it doesn't appear to be online), but this wording does not clearly indicate that the removal was directly connected to Arudou.
• "Eichi Shuppan, Inc. editor Shigeki Saka defended the magazine, arguing that it was not racist." This reference I can read, and it definitely doesn't mention Arudou at all.
• "Responding to his critics in Metropolis Magazine, Saka feared for his life, stating that he had been "subject to a campaign of harassment," received emails issuing death threats, and that an "army of bloggers" had "bullied Family Mart convenience stores into removing Gaijin Hanzai Ura Fairu from their shelves decid[ing] for everyone else that this book is so dangerous that it cannot be read." Again, I checked the article, and it doesn't mention Arudou. Presumably, he is one of the 'army of bloggers' being described, but 1) that's not verified, and 2) it just makes Arudou one of many. This isn't giving prominence to Arudou's opinion as you say above, but, rather, to Saka's opinion.
• "Responding to Saka's "exceptional and spirited" defense, Arudou further attacked Saka as a "bigot", publicly accused the magazine and publisher of "hate speech," and concluded that "Civil society, in the form of 'Newcomer' activists in Japan, succeeded in taking Gaijin Hanzai off the market."" This is the sentence that Bridies and I said we would compromise on, given that it is actually about Arudou. In order for it to make sense without the prior sentences, and to avoid giving it excessive importance, I would propose that we change the last sentence to read, "Family Mart eventually decided to pull the magazine from shelves; Arudou later wrote that he considered Saka's book to be hate speech and that the removal of the magazine was due to the actions of "'Newcomer' activitists in Japan" such as himself."

I hope that this more clearly explains the objections. You keep asserting that we're trying to remove Arudou's opinion, when, in fact, we're trying to remove all of the other stuff--specifically, Saka's opinion and extraneous background material. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)