Talk:Debito Arudou/Archive 4

criticism of the book

I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were some noteworthy criticism of the book published somewhere. But letters written in to a website are not sufficient. A book review, for example, published in some reputable source is along the lines of what is needed. Note that we don't include random praise or criticism from basically people off the street who took the time to write in. For example, of the two letters to Japan Review that I removed reference to, one was by a stockbroker. I have no idea what makes his opinion so important. The other is indeed to an author who has written about Japan. But if his opinion is to be weighted properly, he should have gotten it published somewhere reputable, rather than in a "letters to the editor" context. --C S (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A stockbroker Kinmont may well be, but he has been quoted in several publications of note. As for Peter Tasker, he has several publications on Japanese culture and society. Remove Kinmont's concerns if you like, but Tasker's should remain. As for the website, it seems to have served as a forum for many prominent members of the foreign community in Japan. --Anarmac (talk) 01:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Japan Review or its reputation. If you think it's alright to quote Tasker, due to his expertise, that's fine with me. I would think Japan Review's own book review would be better to quote though. As for Kinmont, he may have been quoted in articles before due to his financial work in Japan and a controversial writing of his. I don't know if that makes everything he says somewhere automatically worth noting. --C S (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but Tasker, Robert Neff and Gregory Clark are reputable. Debito seems to have a bone to pick with Clark, but I don't think that matters. Alex Kerr's comments in the Japan Times should be incorporated - I don't know why they were removed.--Anarmac (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove the Kerr material (which was quite extensive), but I find the current selection quite misleading. If you actually read his response, it is quite a mixed bag. Kerr even comments that perhaps he and others are less willing to stick their necks out to get along in their communities. Sure, he criticized Arudou's approach, but the quote selection makes it seems like Kerr has nothing good to say. That's the problem with this kind of selective quoting, including the selective quoting of Honjo's lengthy book review. --C S (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think the Kerr quotes were that selective; I thought the final quote about Arudou's naturalisation was complementary. I am happy to leave it as is. Why was the 'Neverthess' before Honjo's criticism removed. The two sentences are contradictory (and are presented that way in the review, so 'nevertheless' seems warranted to me.--Anarmac (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to ask WhisperToMe about the "nevertheless". Perhaps there is a cultural difference here, but "complimentary" is not how I would describe the final quote. Perhaps a Japanese person would find it so: the idea that it's not an "outsider" criticizing but someone that's made himself part of the community. As far as my reading goes, it's just an interesting remark that "gaijin ways" are now a part of Japanese society because of people like Arudou. In fact, I suppose a natural and even negative reading is: As despicable as Arudou and his methods are, Japanese people need to learn to put up with more of this kind of thing. So no, I don't find it particularly complimentary to Arudou. --C S (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the "nevertheless," I feel that articles are better without transitions like "nevertheless" as the transitions could appear to "weigh" certain aspects as being more significant than others. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments on "The Dave and Tony Show", and the significance of these

Here's an addition that strikes me as odd:

The book also generated negative responses. In 2005, Yuki Honjo released a review of "Japanese Only" on Japanreview.net[start REF]'The Dave and Tony Show', Japan Review.net, January 2005[end REF] which attracted considerable feedback from many notable members of the expatriate community in Japan, including Gregory Clark, Peter Tasker, Robert Dujarric and Arudou himself. In her review, Honjo claims that "As a primary resource, Japanese Only is virtually unusable" due to bad punctuation, "self-indulgent writing" and "stylistic devices that detract from the 'record.'". Most of the responses that the review generated addressed Arudou's methods and were also negative.[start REF]'Letters', Japan Review.net, January 2005[end REF]

1. This presupposes that there is a (single) "expatriate community in Japan". Does it exist? (I've no reason to think so.)
2. Despite being outside any "expatriate community in Japan", I do know of Gregory Clark. I've never heard of (redlinked) Peter Tasker or (nonlinked) Robert Dujarric. Am I ignorant, or are they perhaps not notable? Or are they notable only within this community of which I am ignorant? (PS Tasker is here. None of the book titles sound even dimly familiar to me, but I suppose he'd have some notability.)
3. The review did indeed get "feedback" from Clark -- because of what it said about Clark. What does this "feedback" tell us about the book or about its author? If not much (or, as I suspect, nothing), why does this article tell us this?
4. I didn't bother to read the comments. If most can indeed be described as saying this or that (e.g. "addressed Arudou's methods and were also negative"), how is this significant?

Hoary (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC) PS added 11:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Tasker has written several titles on Japanese culture and society.

1. Point taken about the lack of a single expatriate community.
2. Tasker's Inside Japan was one of the 'pop' books during the late 1980s and at the time was very well read. It is still in print (or, at least it is at my local bookshop. Amazon doesn't have it). He has also written another book on Japanese society and culture. Robert Dujarric is the director of Japanese studies at a well known university in Japan, has published op-ed pieces in Japanese newspapers, and as well as editing at least one book on Japan's foreign relations with its neighbours, has appeared on shows on international English language TV to discuss Japanese society. I think that makes him notable.
3. Clark's feedback was in defense of his own comments, but the fact that Clark, as well as Tasker and Dujarric responded speaks to the profile of the source, Japanreview.net. If the site had no notability, i.e. if it was just an ordinary blog, then one would expect these fairly notable people to ignore it, but they didn't - and nor did Arudou himself. That leads me to believe it has some value.
4. Previous entries had more fulsome accounts of the criticisms. They were removed, ostensibly because they all came from the one site. They did vary in their criticism, but for parsimony's sake it was probably better to summarise them. In fact, I would have thought the fact that a number of reasonably notable people said similar things in their independent responses would be MORE notable, not less. --Anarmac (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Rushed interim response: J Readings has done more on my talk page to put me right on Tasker. His name's still unfamiliar to me, and I still wonder about an author who would subtitle (or allow his publisher to subtitle) his own book "major", but I accept that I was underinformed about him. -- Hoary (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Arudou says that the article is still biased. He said: "(diff) (hist) . . Debito Arudou‎; 15:52 . . (+26) . . Arudoudebito (Talk | contribs | block) (Replacing NPOV tag. Article still biased, previously-removed unpublished sources like Japanreview.net and Yuki Honjo have been replaced.)" WhisperToMe (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Anyway, I believe the reason why Tasker and Honjo have been included is because their pages attracted many well-known Japanese expatriates. I understand that we do not want to invoke the false authority issue, but the posters here believed that the comments by the people who posted on Honjo's site were relevant. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(I originally posted this note on the WikiProject Japan page). I haven't been following the Debito Arudou page closely in recent months, but I still have WikiProject Japan on my watchlist. I did a search. According to LexisNexis, there was a full feature article on JapanReview published a few years ago (Christoph Mark, "Web site focuses on books about Japan," The Daily Yomiuri, January 6, 2004, p. 14) in which its notability was discussed. It also gets other citations from journalists and academics quoting it ever since, including some of the reviews that were apparently published concurrently in The International Herald-Tribune and The Asian Wall Street Journal. Book publishers link to it: Stone Bridge [1], ME Sharpe [2][3][4], etc. The University of Wisconsin-Madison [5], Harvard University [6], etc., list it as a reliable source for Japanese Studies. Intute: Arts and Humanities, published by the University of Manchester and supported by Mimas (data centre) and the JISC, consider JapanReview to be "high-quality" writing and an "excellent source of comment on Japan and Japan-related publications." [7] Overall, JapanReview seems suitable. I can understand Mr. Arudou's position, though. It's fairly obvious that he wants to remove anything that could be perceived as negative in order to create an advertisement -- otherwise, he would focus on all sources everywhere. He wouldn't be the first subject on Wikipedia to want a micro-managed resume, and he won't be the last. It's natural. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree for the most part regarding the noteworthiness of JapanReview. But let's not exaggerate. For example, it's not that Harvard University thinks it's a worthy site, but that a professor has linked to a book review there of his book (as he did for many other reviews of the same book). Some of the other links also, I don't think such care was put into their link repositories where the individuals involved thought people would be saying "oh, the University of Wisconsin considers this a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense!" For example, I doubt when Tessa Carroll (a lecturer at Stirling) put down that she thought JapanReview was "excellent" that this would be seen as endorsement by Intute, University of Manchester, Mimas, and JISC! She's made entries in the catalogue for a lot of different sites (including some pretty frivolous ones); I seriously doubt that an in-depth analysis of the reliability of JapanReview and the bona fides of its editors was conducted. Nonetheless, the fact that many of the reviews are in fact published in reliable publications does do much to establish the bona fides of the editors (including Honjo). --C S (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, I agree with you actually. It's not that these institutions necessarily endorse JapanReview (let's be clear), but that publicly verifiable sources mentioned them as a source to read for Japanese Studies -- unless we're going to get into a lengthy general debate about what constitutes a reliable source for a reliable source, which, to be honest, probably belongs in a different venue. If we were forced to attribute the comments for citation, then yes, again I would agree with you: it wouldn't necessarily be Intute, but rather Dr. Tessa Carrol contributing to the Intute: Arts and Humanities catologue, etc., etc., etc. The bottom-line is that, on top of everything else that's been said previously, I agree that JapanReview seems suitable. J Readings (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Arudou posted another reply at User_talk:Arudoudebito - I am going to reply to that one. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I found the Daily Yomiuri article about japanreview.net - I'll see if I can find more sources, though. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Link? --C S (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright - LexisNexis is a web site typically accessed at libraries, so I'm not sure how I can provide a URL for LexisNexis. However there is a copy of the said article at http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-19895267_ITM - Only part of it displays to unregistered users, but from what I see it is clear that the Yomiuri Shimbun has discussed the website. Also why not apply the policies at Wikipedia:Reliable sources - Let's use that to determine if the site is acceptable. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the trouble. I just went and got it on Lexis Nexis. I was just being lazy (I have to do a couple things to my computer to route it through a proxy and then find the appropriate university library link to click on). Anyway, this is all overkill, I think. --C S (talk) 03:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Readings said: "It also gets other citations from journalists and academics quoting it ever since, including some of the reviews that were apparently published concurrently in The International Herald-Tribune and The Asian Wall Street Journal." - Let's determine which ones were published in the other sources - this will help establish whether Japanreview.net is a reliable source. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

J Readings said above, in this section: "Overall, JapanReview seems suitable. I can understand Mr. Arudou's position, though. It's fairly obvious that he wants to remove anything that could be perceived as negative in order to create an advertisement -- otherwise, he would focus on all sources everywhere. He wouldn't be the first subject on Wikipedia to want a micro-managed resume, and he won't be the last. It's natural. FWIW".

Er, don't we have a thing about civility in discussions? I too have been annoyed at comments and had language tone here reflect that, but a blanket accusation that I'm trying to make a Wikipedia entry on me into a "micro-managed resume" not only does not assume good faith, it is also a very serious allegation (and a slur against the subject of this entry) that warrants the credibility and impartiality of this person, both as a guardian editor of this site and a defender of a dubious source, to be called into question.

So let me do that. Who are you, J Readings? Your name and your connection to Japanreview.net, please. An inability to be verifiable will make it impossible to check out any COI. And will doom Wikipedia to be overtaken someday by credibility-checkers like Citizendium. So for the sake of the media, come clean.

Finally, as regards my allegedly not focusing on all sources everywhere: Sure, criticisms in reputable published sources (not just mere letters to the editor etc. and laundered quotes from defunct nonpublication websites), put them up in this entry. My issue has always been: how sources that are NOT critical but ARE in reputable published sources are NOT put up, to balance out the subject. I raised this issue several weeks ago. And the media has still not corrected itself. Instead, we have J Readings reemerging from his or her bolthole to argue that the same old sources that were problematic before and removed should be reinstated. Carrying out edit wars of attrition like this only hurt Wikipedia in the end, people. See past the sophistry, please. Arudoudebito (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be very stressed and upset Mr. Arudou, and it was never my intention to add to it. I'm sorry about that. That said, I'll let my contributions to Wikipedia speak for themselves. Editors are welcome to review them at J_Readings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As I said before, I was responding to a post on WikiProject Japan. I haven't touched the content of the article for at least six months (probably more) -- with the notable exeption of a few clear cases of vandalism several months ago. I certainly don't WP:OWN this article. I believe, as most editors probably do, that talk page discussions for the benefit of improving an article are almost always a good thing unless they're designed to be disruptive. I notice that several editors (and others) have tried repeatedly to point out to you how Wikipedia works per WP:BITE (as you're obviously new to the project). I hope you'll take their advice on board and continue to edit Wikipedia. It's a worthwhile project. In good faith, J Readings (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Who are you? And what is your connection to Japanreview.net?

Let the record show that "J Readings", whoever he or she is, refused to answer the questions immediately above and evaded accountability.

QED. Its editors like "J Readings" who publicly impugn the character of the person being covered, yet will not come clean about who they themselves are, do a disservice to this media. Wikipedia as information source will only suffer for it. Let's see if Wikipedia as a system can actually (and finally, after all these years of J Readings' guardian edits) do something about it. Arudoudebito (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Be aware that there is no requirement for users to identify themselves for the sake of an arguement regarding the notability of a website.. The359 (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And let me further add that if J Readings is somehow involved with JapanReview, that he may be violating a conflict of interest, but there are several other editors who are also supporting the use of JapanReview. Therefore, any possible affiliation between J Readings and JapanReview is moot as the articles stand on their merit, not on the user who added them or endorsed them. The359 (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and these arguments (and the inability and unwillingness of the editors to police themselves, let alone the "sources" they cite) are why Wikipedia will continuously fail to cover contentious subjects fairly or in a balanced manner. It has insufficient checks and balances of its own. Farewell Wikipedia. I hope someday you'll develop the sophistication to heal yourself. But unlikely if this is how the place is run. Arudoudebito (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring what I just said. We checked JapanReview, there is nothing wrong with it by our standards. Just because you that view, does not mean the majority do. It also does not mean that Wikipedians have not policed the source, they have, numerous times.

The fact that you believe that Wikipedia fails to properly present your article shows that it is you who has bias regarding the presentation of this article. It is clear that you have a conflict of interest in this article, and your attempt to mold it to what you are satisfied with should never be allowed. We are not here to write the article you want. We're here to present a verfiable article on the subject, and the sourcecs in question have been verified and supported. We're sorry you disagree, but your opinion does not outweigh others.

If you wish to contribute to other Wikipedia articles, you're more than welcome. But I believe you have strayed well beyong the lines of COI, and should not edit or attempt to sway users to edit your article to fit your own criteria. The359 (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, one might add that it was not J Readings that made the most recent Honjo addition; it was I. When I edited this article I introduced facts from only reputable sources and even introduced aspects of the subject (the Tama-chan protests) that Arudou himself had claimed had been left out despite adequate documentation. I included comments from the Honjo review because it was published on a website whose notability was attested to by the responses it generated. I have outlined my reasons for doing so quite clearly above and I would encourage Mr. Arudou to address the merit of these points. As for Honjo's critiques, they were directly relevant to the issues discussed on the Debito Arudou page (i.e. the book 'Japanese only' and the methods that Debito used). Arudou simply cannot deny that a) there was criticism of his book, b) that criticism generated responses amongst expatriates who have published their views on Japan and Japanese society (including, in the case of at least Clark and Tasker, what it means to be "foreign" in Japan), and c) now it seems that the source in question has been cited by a number of quality sources. An interesting aside, and perhaps irrelevant for our purposes here is that Arudou himself wrote into Japanreview.net to complain about the review. If he does not think the source was notable, why did he bother? --Anarmac (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Reading the section over with fresh eyes, I am struck by how long the Honjo related stuff is. We get one brief sentence saying Jeff Kingston wrote a positive review in the Japan Times (and Kingston's bona fides are certainly far greater than Honjo's), and then we get a paragraph of the Honjo stuff. It mentions that she didn't like his punctuation. Geeez. Who cares? If we're going to throw that in, we might as well mention that she doesn't like his hairstyle (I made that up, but you get the point). Rather than this sad state of affairs, let's just briefly, very briefly sum up her main dislike of the book. And I'm not sure this has been discussed, but I don't think it's important to mention that all those people wrote in response to the review to criticize his methods (in other words, they aren't reviewing his book). We're supposed to be explaining criticism of the book, not all the side-issues that crop up when his name is mentioned. There's already a quite extensive section of criticism of his methods, which is titled "methods". --C S (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So, that means I can cut Honjo down to one sentence to one paragraph and NOT mention any of the reader responses, correct? WhisperToMe (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. I don't think the reader response is particularly relevant. See next response below. --C S (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it can be trimmed down in order to remain balanced with the praise of the book. But it should not be removed. The359 (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed it down a bit to the point where it is one long sentence with a semicolon; I cut off what Honjo specifically said about the book and tried to make the sentence a bit more general. See, Wikipedia works. On one hand we decided that Japanreview was an acceptable source, but we trimmed the sentence down so it is more balanced. :) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If Honjo's review is going to be mentioned, particularly as a negative one, we need to explain that. The irrelevant thing is that people wrote in response to the review to discuss Arudou's methods and not necessarily his book. It would be as if I said, oh the New York Times reviewer wrote about X's book, and a bunch of people wrote in saying they didn't like how X behaved. I'll try and sum up the Honjo review, although it's somewhat scattered and verbose, so.... --C S (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the bona fides of Jeff Kingston[8], I haven't read very much of his scholarly work. The fault is entirely mine, not his, because his work does seem very interesting. I just never had much time to sit myself down lately and read his books. In any case, I bring it up because after C.S. mentioned his name last night, I was inspired to re-read a little bit from one of his books on my shelf: Japan's Quiet Transformation: Social Change and Civil Society in the Twenty-first Century (London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004). Interestingly enough, Dr. Kingston cites JapanReview in his bibliography (p. 346) as part of his "internet links" used to research his book. It's sandwiched between the electronic journal Japan Focus and the California-based think tank Japan Policy Research Institute (which C.S. added to the article today). I'm just mentioning it because it's a harmless, but interesting factoid. No deeper meaning, intended. Cheers, J Readings (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello J. I'm happy to see I inspired you :-). It is indeed funny that you stumbled across the mention, given what we've been discussing. --C S (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, someone just randomly came by and deleted a bunch of stuff, with not a hint of consensus for it whatsoever. Indeed, the opposite is the case. It's not an NPOV violation to have something negative in a biography. The edit summary of the deletion seemed to think otherwise. --C S (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't me. Revert it if you like. Again, I have no problems with criticisms of me being included on my biography page, as long as they are properly sourced from established publications and authoritative sources. Some of them are not even under Wikipedia guidelines (and not just Japanreview.net citations), but The Consensus has apparently ruled they are so hey presto.

Final request to The Consensus: Please remove the tag above placed at the top of this page yesterday that reads, "An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Debito Arudou, has edited Wikipedia as Arudoudebito". That is not the case. I placed an NPOV tag at the top of the main page only (as I did last August, without any similar tagging), without editing the contents below in any way. That's all. I have never altered the contents of the main page in any way. To reiterate; I have not edited. I have asked people to edit, and I have brought up issues I thought needed attention on the Talk pages. That should not consitute a kind of "interventionist edit warning" as the tag above will lead readers to believe. Arudoudebito (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Arudou, we are aware it was not you - The edit history says it was User:Hontogaichiban - I invited the user to this discussion. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply it was you. That's why I said "randomly". I gave some reasons below for why the Japan Review stuff is appropriate for inclusion. Anyway, I think I'm about done with the edits I wanted to make related to this matter. Even if you don't particularly like it, I hope some of your concerns have been alleviated.

As for that tag thing, this is one of those contentious things that I and many other editors have little control over. This "X has edited Wikipedia" tag has been put up for deletion (it's not just articles that can be nominated for deletion but templates/tags etc also) several times but the result has been keep so far. And one of the reasons for nomination is the kind of implication you describe. It's an implication rather than an outright claim, because the tag only says that you "edited Wikipedia", which is certainly true.

I'll remove the tag. But someone else may eventually replace it. On the other hand, consider that the tag isn't really a big deal when you've already made all these comments on the talk pages. Probably the thing to have done if you wanted to avoid all this, is to have sent an email directly to the Wikipedia higher-ups; they would have issued some tenacious, intimidating editor to come and clean things up. You would never have left any talk page remarks, and there would be no tag. --C S (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I already tried to explain this on his blog, but it has fallen on deaf ears. If you click the "Edit" button anywhere on Wikipedia, you've edited Wikipedia. Nowhere in the template does it say it has to be an article. It simply says that this user is on Wikipedia.

"as long as they are properly sourced from established publications and authoritative sources." - And guess what? Not everyone agrees. Which is why sources need to be discussed. Which is what we tried to do here, but you decided to question editors for not supporting your claim. Your believing that these sources are not "established publications" or "authoritative sources" does not make it a fact. Once again, you've been asked to discuss, but instead you've acted as if you are the authority to judge what is a suitable reference. You are not. The359 (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

comment on why Honjo's review is appropriate for mention: If Arudou were taken completely at his word, we would think Honjo is some completely random person that said something negative about his book. Here are some facts on the situation. Honjo and Arudou know each other. Honjo's Japan Review co-editor Peter Scalise was asked by Arudou to read a draft copy and is mentioned in the book's acknowledgments. Japan Review also interviewed Arudou at some point. Arudou has a very long response to Honjo's review on his website. This is not just some random website nor was the inclusion of the negative review to harrass Mr. Arudou. It is here to provide a more complete picture than simple praise would. To add some balance, I mentioned in the article that Scalise had vetted the earlier draft. So at least the reader can see that Honjo and Scalise differ. I think I will also add some positive remarks from another reviewer to fill things out. --C S (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, C S! Anyway, if you have the book, please add a citation for the acknowledgment sections. I might tinker with the language of the sentence a bit so that Honjo's response is not weighed as more significant than Scalise's. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed Honjo mentioned the acknowledgments/Scalise thing in her review, and her wording was that Scalise had "vetted" an early draft, which is pretty strong wording. I don't have the book itself to see if Scalise is in the acknowledgments, but I don't have a reason to doubt it. --C S (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to be thorough I posted a request to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard just to make sure that everyone gets to confirm whether Japanreview.net may be used. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

CS, why has the Honjo quote about Arudou's writing been toned down? It would seem to me that in a book review, an analysis of writing style is somewhat important, especially when it shows what type of work the book is. I think this has been done to placate Mr. Arudou, who is obviously trying to make his page conform to his expectations about how he should be portrayed. That's not what Wikipedia is about. Either JapanReview.net is notable or it isn't. If it isn't, Honjo's review should not be included at all. If it is - and The Consensus seems to hold that it is - Honjo's review should not be dressed up in a nice frock to make Mr Arudou feel better. It was a hard hitting review. The page should reflect that. I do agree, however, that more positive reviews (like Ritchie's) could be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarmac (talk • contribs) 07:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What we include, and how much we include, is largely a matter of editorial discretion, in conjunction with policies such as WP:UNDUE. I originally included a longer passage which stated her dislike of his narrative style (which is basically what the original lengthy description before was trying to say, the one which mentioned his punctuation), but then I realized that this one review description was as long as the description of the book and the Kingston review. That seems hardly fair, and has nothing to do with placating Arudou. Yes, Honjo's was a "hard hitting review", in fact, AFIAK the only even negative one. Let's be clear. Japan Review is worthy of mention. But it's not that noteworthy. The credentials of the people who wrote generally positive reviews such as Kingston, et al, are significantly greater than that of Honjo. I'm also reluctant to play a game of "include another positive review in exchange for including one more negative remark from Honjo". It inflates the status of Honjo's review to that of something as in the New York Times Sunday Book Review, which it is not. It is one negative review, by a moderately respected and knowledgable expatriate, who works in finance as a day job and started a website reviewing books with her husband as a hobby. There's also a real misrepresentation issue here. The other editor of Japan Review, Scalise, vetted the book. It's important to include Honjo's viewpoints in a way that clarifies that her views are her own and not necessarily reflective of Scalise. --C S (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The other issue I considered was space in the section. There's a natural tendency to focus on one small part of the article until it becomes a very large part of one's perspective. This is why it took a second fresh look for me to notice. Let's look at the article as a whole. This is a publications section, where we are supposed to briefly explain his writing activities. It's natural to make some comment as to the reception, but that doesn't mean we take the opportunity to make some extensive survey of book reviews of Japanese Only. Look at the "methods" section. It really is a "criticism of his methods" section, isn't it? Are you really seeing the whole article? I think currently it gives a pretty good picture of the man without being unfairly nasty or critical. Some people (like Arudou) still see it as being unfair, and others like you, think the article has been white-washed. Oh well. I think I've done the job well. --C S (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to resolve this dispute, C S. We have had a comment today from somebody arbitrating up at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Japanreview.net is inappropriate as a source, according to a highly-barnstarred editor. I don't know how Wikipedia works, but how many more of these comments, or how many barnstars does it take, before we have The alleged Consensus overruled? Copypasting here with emphasis added. Arudoudebito (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not an appropriate source for a biography of a living person. Some of the authors are scholars publishing elsewhere, and it can be treated as a self-published source of such a scholar. If articles are published somewhere else as well as on this website, then they may well be RS and both sources can be given. But material published only here cannot be used in a biography. You could get further opinions at the biography of living persons noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Debito_Arudou_and_Japanreview.net

Section Break

If the JapanReview statements are removed because they are not a reliable source, then there should be a removal of the praise from the Japan Times, should there not? As I mentioned in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, if these books had their own articles and we only included the praise from the Japan Times, then this would be a case of undue weight and bias. Ignoring the validity of JapanReview, we can't have just praise. Either a reliably sourced criticism needs to be added, or the praise needs to be removed. The359 (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Omigod, are we arguing this with a straight face? We can't have PRAISE? Speaking of undue weight, we've had almost nothing but criticism up for years now from what has now been adjudged by more barnstars than you to be an unreliable source (a website et al that is nothing more than a blog). So now we'd better remove the praise despite the fact that it IS from a reliable source (the Japan Times)?

Repeating the argument above, we must have criticism before we can allow praise? This is a BIAS, people. Against praise. Heaven forfend our biographied subject ever get praised! It becomes an advertisement! Well, no it doesn't. It becomes troll-proof, because the only people who are really levelling (mostly unfair, and that's why it's mostly unpublished in properly-vetted and fact-checked sources) criticisms are people who aren't offering balanced opinions. On balance, what the subject is doing has garnered mostly praise, like it or not. Except from the people like those who seek to become guardian editors of this website who hide behind Internet monikers, and offer opinions they don't have to take responsibility for because nobody knows who they are or what their track record is. They don't WANT praise -- they want criticism only or praise removed unless criticism is allowed to exist.

If we are judging by content and content alone, the only reliable sources out there that can be allowed are those that, coincidentally, say mostly nice things. Content that is praising is not inherently bad. Content that is reliably sourced (and coincidentially for the most part positive) is the only thing allowed under Wikipedia rules. But The Alleged Consensus at least as far as the guardian editors are concerned has been to ignore those rules. Because they want a tendentious biography that criticizes the subject and doesn't allow praise. The above editor has argued precisely as such above.

Heal thyself, Wikipedia. Get rid of these anonymous tendentious Internet bullies. Arudoudebito (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Barnstars have no merit. They're handed out by any editor for any reason for fun. Having more (or any at all) does not make that person's opinion better. There is no hierarchy based upon barnstars, number of editors, or any other criteria. Every editor's opinion is welcomed, and every editor's opinions are equal.

2. Past versions of the article have no merit on how the article should be now. If the article is unbalanced in its praise now, it doesn't matter if the article called you a dirty liar for a year. What matters is how the article appears now.

3. Wikipedia articles must be neutral and present facts without attempting to bias opinions to one side, such as "This book is great." WP:UNDUE clearly states "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

4. Just because something is from a reliable entity such as the Japan Times does not mean it has to be included in the article. Having a single reviewer's praise of a book does not make the article any more factual or accurate.

5. Not including praise in an article does not mean that it simply does not exist. No one has denied that there is praise, so there is no "like it or not." The suggestion has nothing to do with denying praise, it has to do with being neutral and presenting a balanced article. Wikipedia is not here to write about every little thing about the subject, so no reader should expect are large number of opinions to be present in the article.

6. Be aware that removing all "praise" was my suggestion. This statement "The book is listed in the Japan Policy Research Institute's recommended library on Japan." is a honor that can be viewed as praise but it is also factual and does not represent a single opinion. There is nothing wrong with that line and it's more than welcome to stay. The problem lies in having one reviewer who supports the book, but not one who doesn't.

7. "...because the only people who are really levelling (mostly unfair, and that's why it's mostly unpublished in properly-vetted and fact-checked sources) criticisms are people who aren't offering balanced opinions." WP:Assume Good Faith. Don't assume that those who disagree with you are biased. Nobody here is out to discredit you or put you down. You'll get farther if you dropped that attitude already. The same applies to "Guardian editors"; that term doesn't make sense as no such thing exists here. Take this as a warning: Stop the incivility and accusations without a shred of evidence. This includes accusations of Conflict of Interest without proof, Bias without proof, and the use of the terms internet bullies, Guardian Editors, and Internet Trolls. I do not want this to escalate to a more official arbitration regarding your behaviour.

8. We are not judging on content and content alone. This entire discussion is on neutrality. And if we include opinions, even if they are reliably sourced, then this article breaks Wikipedia's rule of neutrality. You argue we are breaking rules, while not getting the concept that we can't have a 1-line praise of a book without some equal criticism, or none at all. The359 (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, do we need to have this at mediation or anything like that? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes we do. Contact the relevant authorities, if there are any in this medium. This "truth and reliable sources by majority rule" kangaroo court on this Talk page has gone on for years now, and now the editorial biases are finally in plainer sight. Arudoudebito (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There are no "authorities", merely places to take disputes and have normal editors discuss them. This discussion is also not a vote. We are attempting to discuss the issues with this article and reach a consensus. The359 (talk) 03:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

We could always start a Wikipedia:Request for comment - And after that, a Wikipedia:Request for mediation. I might start an RFC soon. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Quit splitting hairs. Stop talking about what we "might" do. Get somebody to mediate, or whatever word you want to choose, already. You suggested it. So get on it. Get somebody neutral to look at what's going on here. Arudoudebito (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Arudou, RFC is more or less a request for editors to look at the article. If there is a consensus after the RFC, the issue is more or less resolved. Anyhow, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation is a step reserved for when there is still no consensus. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there should also be further discussion on whether or not, pending the removal of this website, if the article has undue weight for including only praise. The359 (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Pardon the new guy, but I agree with The 359 on this. Having read both reviews (Honjo's and Kingston's) if you remove either one and leave the other the whole NPOV thing goes right out the window. Honjo's review may possibly dwell excessively on the myriad stylistic failings of the book (not that it matters in the grand scheme of the debate here, but I have read "Japanese Only" and it is darn near impossible to follow what Arudou is trying to say sometimes), but Kingston praises that same style so highly I found myself wondering if he and I had read the same book. But again, I suppose that is neither here nor there. The point is, if the JapanReview.net review is removed for whatever reason, the only discussion of the book would be an obviously biased "pro" review. There would be a NPOV problem in that case.Genkimon (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Noise and Rhetoric Problem

When Mr. Arudou called Wikipedians “loons that pose as editors,” I politely refrained from commenting.[9] When he insulted a Wikipedia admin, calling him a “liar” and continued to repeat it, [10] I stayed out of it. When he attacked me personally on his website and Wikipedia more than once, repeatedly accusing me of being a “guardian editor” (despite not having edited the article in over six months), placing instructions to disregard my participation in the article’s “to-do” box (of all places!) because he was angry other editors (not even me) did not agree with some of his demands, or when he accused me of having a conflict of interest (no proof whatsoever) simply because I tried to add citations and clean up this mess of an article last year, I quietly sat back and was willing to let him rant.

The list goes on and on, of course, but it would be no exaggeration to state that Mr. Arudou has been repeatedly rude and uncivil per WP:ATTACK. That other editors were mindful of WP:BITE—including admins—and tried to engage him in dialogue was only a testament to how people tried to be constructive and polite for quite some time while realizing that, sooner or later, things will have to calm down and we can all go back to being productive members of Wikipedia.

I’m still hopeful.

In any case, Mr. Arudou, I’m speaking directly to you now – please, tone down the rhetoric and the attacks on Wikipedia. We are not “trolls”. This is not a conspiracy. No one is out to get you. If you continue to attack your fellow Wikipedians, it’s going to escalate into a real disruption and other admins will have to be contacted. Please, I’m asking nicely: tone down the rhetoric and be respectful to others. I've already apologized to you once on something that was harmless compared to the rhetoric you've been using. We all realize that you're new to Wikipedia and you really have a steep learning curve ahead of you. That's fine and acceptable. No one blames you for that and we all welcome your participation. But it is absolutely no excuse for the way you repeatedly -- not once, not twice -- but continually insult others with your language. And if you continually defend that kind of rhetoric, we're gong to have a real problem. Regards, J Readings (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You levelled the accusation first, J Readings, that I was trying to convert this entry into a resume and an advertisement (talk about lack of proof). So don't now take the distracting tack that I'm now victimizing you "personally" somehow when we don't even know who you are and your (I strongly suspect, and you refused to clarify) direct connection to the now-debunked Japanreview.net source. The attack first came from you and your edits over the years.

Do your (your as a plural) jobs as editors and use reliable sources. And don't then argue that praise isn't allowed unless there is criticism. And don't point-blank accuse me of editing my own article for my own ends. Then you won't get this kind of response from me. I have been waiting for years (yes, years, not just six months; check the records since the entry started, and you'll see that J Readings' edits with a criticism-only bent are all over) for people to follow WP rules regarding sourcing. It's still not happening. Instead, we have people trying to argue in effect that praise isn't allowed, period, regardless of reliable source. That's not just against WP rules. That defies common sense.

Don't threaten to take this to higher admin. Go ahead and take it to them. Let's put your barnstars as editors on the line and see if you (plural) really have the mettle, pardon the pun, to stand by your record regarding this years-long biased Wikipedia entry being run by people with a clear and present bias. Arudoudebito (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. This is really getting out of hand. Okay, if I understand you correctly, just so we're clear, you continue to think it's appropriate for you to behave this way towards others. Would that be a fair assessment of what you're saying? A simple yes or no will suffice. J Readings (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)