Talk:Chiitan

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 01:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Chiitan

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a 0-year-old genderless fairy baby otter once threatened "to visit your house" with a baseball bat? Source: "A Rogue Otter Mascot Named Chiitan is Terrorizing Tourists and Wreaking Havoc in Japan"
  • ALT1:... that a 0-year-old fairy baby once threatened to "give John Oliver the chance to explode through a table"? Source: "Chiitan vs John Oliver: Talk Show Host Responds to Japanese Mascot’s Challenge to Battle【Video】"

Created by Ferox Seneca (talk). Self-nominated at 17:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC).

• Why cite Mental Floss when The New York Times is available? Mental Floss is just regurgitating the NYTimes. This article appears to be very weak in citations to reliable sources when there is no lack of coverage.[1][2][3] Instead it relies too much on blogs. There are also possible reasons offered for why the Twitter accounts may have been block which the article fails to note.[4][5] --- Coffeeandcrumbs 12:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure which specific parts you think are not sufficiently sourced. Every line of the article is sourced. The "sources" section cited eleven separate articles at the time of submission. Most of the sources are reliable (like the Guardian, Japan Times, and the Washington Post, but other websites are used when they provide more details. None of the sources contradict each other, and often both more- and less- well-known media sites cite each other. In general, I chose to use articles that had the most detail, and I don't think that there is any reason to believe that any of the information in the article is not reliable or correct. For example, I wouldn't normally consider "Mondo Media" to be the most reliable source, but this New York Times article and this New York Times article both cite the website as an authority on the mascot and use its information, so I don't think there is a reason not to cite the website directly. If there is some specific information that seems that it was reported incorrectly or is contradicted by a more-reliable or well-known site, please let me know.

Mental Floss is a multimedia news company and a reliable source. It isn't a blog and it isn't unreliable.

I appreciate your finding additional sources for the article. In general I didn't cite the New York Times because it seemed at the time like its articles were behind a paywall, but I recently found that I could view their articles after making a free account, so several of their articles have since been reviewed and used in the "Chiitan" article.

I will review the articles you cited.

[1]Much of the information from this New York TImes article is already covered in more detail in other articles, and doesn't contradict anything that is already cited: it says the exact same thing as the other sources, but is more general and less detailed. It cites other websites that are already sourced directly in this article. I cited one sentence sourced to this article about people mistaking Chiitan for Shinjo-kun that I hadn't read before.

[2]I reviewed this Guardian article. It shares some of the problems with article [1]: mostly it says the same thing as other articles, but it is more general and less detailed. It has some additional details regarding Oliver's coverage of Chiitan, so I added and sourced that information to this article.

[3]I added references to Chiitan trying to recreate action sequences for a video game found in this article from Polygon. The article incorrectly calls Chiitan "her", when in fact Chiitan has no gender.

[4]Most of the information in this article from the Japan Times is covered in other cited articles, but I added a small amount of new information from the article on speculation about why Chiitan's accounts may have been suspended.

[5]I reviewed this article from the New York Times. It had a lot of new information, and is now cited six times in the current version of the Chiitan article.

Every line of the current version of the Chiitan article is cited, and the article includes information from sixteen sources, none of which contradict each other.Ferox Seneca (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Just need WP:QPQ.

On non-failing note, I would avoid an all-encompassing section titled "Controversy". Use more NPOV titles for smaller sections like "Reception", "Media coverage", "Reactions from...", or more specific "Banned on Twitter" and "Last Week Tonight episode". Just a suggestion. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

As per your request, I changed the subtitle to "media reception".Ferox Seneca (talk) 05:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I’m on vacation without my laptop and will review another nomination after I arrive this Tuesday, July 10. Please don’t fail the article in the meantime.Ferox Seneca (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ferox Seneca: I would do the QPQ for you rather than fail the nomination. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I completed my QPQ, here.Ferox Seneca (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Both hooks good to go. Both are best placed in the quirky spot. I prefer ALT0 ("baseball bat"). --- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

We Otter Have A Picture

of this puppy 72.141.106.240 (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree! Having just come across this article and being unfamiliar with the bizarre story, it strikes me that the article is seriously lacking without a picture of its subject. My first reaction was 'so what does this Chiitan look like?' and I'm sure anyone would think the same. Surely a single picture can be justified under fair use? Robofish (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, the lengthy list of sources at the bottom overwhelms the page a bit. The use of {{reflist}} might be preferred here, it would make it easier to find a particular reference in the article. Robofish (talk) 12:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I added a picture of a generic Asian small-clawed otter from that page. I assume an WP:NFUR rationale would be needed for any representation of the mascot itself? Then again, Commons has Category:Mascots of Japan so I'm not sure. 9³ (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have a good track record of successfully proposing fair-use rationales for images whose copyrights have clearly not expired, even for images in which the author is anonymous. I contacted Chiitan's media company in the hopes of having them donate a picture, but was unsuccessful. If you think you have the skills to play the game of fair-use rationale, I can do my best to walk you through it.Ferox Seneca (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Media?

"Chiitan began to produce media...." How does an imaginary otter produce media? How does an imaginary otter do anything? 71.235.184.247 (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I assume that it was the people running the company that managed Chiitan that actually produced Chiitan's media, but the media was produced as if Chiitan was the author.Ferox Seneca (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Twitter suspension

i'd shy away from speculating (even indirectly) that the suspension was related to John Oliver or the Susaki city government as there has been no official word on the matter, (also a bit hard of a stretch...). I believe (again, speculation) that this could be based on Twitter's policy on a minimum age requirement, as Chiitan's bio stated they were a '0 year old fairy baby' which is in line to what's already been reported as no warning and there was a spike of suspensions at the time

Sudden suspension of accounts have been a widespread incident in the last several days. We are not certain what is causing the unexpected account suspension.

(The same year, Twitter also temporarily suspended meme-creator Dolan Dark's page without warning because his bio stated he was a '12 year old music critic', although Dolan got in direct contact with Twitter and got his page back) Weebasenji (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Chiitan.jpg (discussion)
• Shinjo-kun.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)