Talk:Joji Obara

Untitled

Concerning the changes I made: That the view is slanted is not mentioned in the sources, i.e. it's own research, so I removed it. The Independent source was completely irrelevant, so I removed that one too (I'm not saying the article is of no interest, but it does not support the statement it followed). Finally, if you are going to say something like "The Japanese judicial system was criticised", you are going to need more than one source criticising them. You need either, a good bunch of sources criticising it, or one source summarising the criticism. I didn't remove this part though, but it does need better sourcing. Mackan 22:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a murder victim?

Are you suggesting she wasn't killed "deliberately" (which is the definition my Oxford dictionary gives me)? Even if Obara isn't charged with murder (for whatever reason), it doesn't really change the fact that Blackman was murdered. If it was Obara's entry we were talking about, removing the tag "murderers" might have been more appropriate, but I suggest the tag "murder victim" is put back right here.

That comment was by me btw, forgot to sign. Since you haven't replied I'll put the tag back. Mackan 22:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't charged with murder because intent to kill had not been proven[1]. He fully intended to rape his victims, but it was because his pattern of serial rape, the deaths of two women out of 400+ acts was thought of as incidental. There were also no witnesses to attest to the fact that he had forethought of the act. Besides, its the police,courts, and the M.E.s that decide such things. Putting that tag in is POV opinion at the worst and own research at best. Go with what's been reported and ruled on and not your opinion of the crime. Neoyamaneko 01:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, I'm irritated that you'd accuse me of POV as well as of OR, I find it quite rude. I only put the tag back after you didn't reply here for 2 days. I don't need a rebukal to go with your explanation, mister. Mackan 09:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not my life nor does it pay my bills, so if I don't respond after 2 days, it's not the end of anyone's world. Now....onto other things. You can call what I did an "accusation", while I tend to go with "statement of fact". The police and prosecution didn't charge or indict Obara with murder because intent to kill hadn't been established. So, to call her a "murder victim" is an opinion and if you come up with anything that supports that view but doesn't support the direction of the trial and/or the probable outcome is your own research. And even *if* he was charged and indicted on murder charges, the case hasn't rendered a verdict yet, so you couldn't put the tag in until someone of authority in the court said said "guilty" anyways. Don't take it personal, because people on wiki critique a lot harder than I and there are thesis advisers in uni that would tear people new orifices for such things.Neoyamaneko 13:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I have no problems with you not responding for two days, that's not what I'm complaining about. I don't question the "murder" definition either (since your first answer), but instead of answering my question why the tag should be there, you accused me of OR as well as POV-pushing, which was completely uncalled for. Also, I had my thesis defense a month ago so you don't have to tell me how I should take your criticism. This isn't my thesis and I don't care what "other people on the wiki" do, all I'm asking you is to be civil. Mackan 17:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If you take offense at it, and you think I'm being uncivil for calling a spade a spade, that's not my problem. And, like I said, putting the tag based on the facts of the case is what it is. As I saw it, I explained it *and* said what putting the tag in looked like. You looked past the explanation and saw what you believed was a personal attack (constructive criticism is not a personal attack). I took yours in stride, why can't you in kind? I'll just leave it at that since you want to be defensive and combative about a little thing. Neoyamaneko 02:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Prostitution in Japan

I do not think that link is slander. To me, it never meant that Lucie Blackman herself was involved in prostitution, but it's relevant to this article, not only because Joji Obara's other victims were largely prostitutes. Mackan 11:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's at least inappropriate. There's no evidence that Blackman was a prostitute, and while hostess clubs do have a link with prostitution, they're just as often places where sex with the hostesses is not an option (only conversation). The Hostess club article is not categorized under "prostitution in Japan," so there's no reason for this article to be either. Exploding Boy 18:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know, I do see your point, but I'm not sure I agree. The linked article gives interesting insight into something which is closely related to the subject of this article, whether Blackman was a prostitute or not. I think that especially the Mizuho Fukushima quote is a good reason to include such a link. I never thought of the link's inclusion as a suggestion that she was a prostitute, and I'm not sure most others will either. Mackan 17:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Exploding Boy - inappropriate and the job she was doing is already linked in the article so it is unnecessary Weggie 19:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, Weggie, but I would appreciate if you also responded to the specific remarks I made. Does not the Mizuho Fukushima quote give a good reason to include such a link? Mackan 19:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK - but I will have to post more tomorrow as I've run out of time tonight. I think it should be possible to expand the Fukushima paragraph to cover the valid points you have made and also include the link in the main body of the work Weggie 21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio?

On July 1, Lucie went on a dohan (a paid date) with a customer from Casablanca... No one heard from her again.[1]

This para (and the next, ending She is safe and training in a hut in Chiba) is lifted word for word from the Time article. Just because that article is quoted as the source (of the facts) doesn't mean huge chunks can be lifted without explicit acknowledgement. I suggest it should be reworded. Flapdragon 12:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite Sentence

Japanese media sources clearly state that he was given indefinite sentence (Muki choeki). Though I do accept that almost all media in English translated this as life sentence, this is categorically wrong in technical term because there are some common law countries which use indefinite sentence apart from life sentence. Moreover, without this correct translation, one cannot properly translate the debate in Japan regarding the introduction of life sentence. Here is a reference in English legal system about indefinite sentence. Encyclopedia Britannica also has a separate entry for indeterminate sentence. Though many media source use "life sentence" in place of indeterminate sentence for easy reading, wikipedia as an online "encyclopedia" should use more accurate term. I also altered article about life sentence in Japan. Vapour

It's actually referred to in English as an "indeterminate sentence", and it is used in the judicial system of South Africa as well. Neoyamaneko 03:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment on Joji Obara

For those who may be interested, there is a long-standing debate as to whether the article about the suspect should open with an explit mention of his ethnic minority status. Looking for as many comments as possible, long or short - please take a peek at Talk:Joji Obara#Rfc Ethnic origin mentions and help us resolve this dispute. Phonemonkey 23:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Title

Main page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucie Blackman

It's not clear what title would be the best choice to move this article. Murder of Lucie Blackman was the most popular choice, but it might not be the best one due to doubts about her actual cause of death. I for one was going to move it to "Murder of..." but thought better of it, doubting the merit of "murder" as a neutral word to describe any incident. Perhaps Disappearance of Lucie Blackman would be better. Ironically though, the status quo would probably be least controversial, so I'm not touching it. Have fun. — CharlotteWebb 02:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to Joji Obara

Personally, I think this is a good solution. Wikipedia retains information on her murder, which the AfD indicated has been of some importance in the media and in international relations; but by redirecting to another article we avoid the over-detailed description of the circumstances surrounding her disappearance and murder. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be tabloid news.

Another option would be to strip this article down to bare details, and rename it, as most of the AfD "voters" thought should be done. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, the consensus in the AFD wasn't to keep, but to change the topic to the murder or the case, which is why the merge/redirect works.-Wafulz 15:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Mori or Koizumi?

The Wiki page says Tony Blair met with PM Koizumi to raise the case. Time magazine says Blair met with Yoshiro Mori to raise the case. Which is correct? Time magazine says Blair met with Yoshiro Mori to raise the case. Which is correct? http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,108848,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.47.66.229 (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Cases ended

probably best to update this page now huh? He was found innocent.

Not charged with murder

As appalling as his acts were, the courts have NOT charged him with murder, rather "forced sex (rape) resulting in death". The page and tages have been changed accordingly.

Korean

The fact that he is Korean IS relevant. The Koreans living in Japan are discriminated against and demonised. As a result : 1. This case is a godsend for Japanese racists 2. Obara's chances of a fair trial are pretty marginal, despite his wealth and connections to the Sumiyoshi yakuza. (He ran money laundering schemes for them )

As Kusunose stated, per WP:MOSBIO#Opening paragraph; his ethnicity is not relevant to the subject's notability. Let me quote: "The opening paragraph should give:

(...)

3) Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." (my bolding).

(...)

If no rationale for including his ethnicity in the opening paragraph is provided shortly, I will once again, in accordance with Wiki guidelines, remove it. Any more unexplained reverts (back to the current version) will be reported to administrators. Mackan 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Simply stating a fact doesn't qualify as an emphasis. I don't see no emphasis in the sentence. What you are doing is a cover-up. You are misinterpreting the guideline. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vml132f (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

... No, I'm not misinterpreting the guideline and I'm not covering up anything. Have a second look at it, and use a dictionary this time if you don't understand what it means instead of jumping to conclusions.

Here's a thing we can do - ask somebody else what they think, Wikipedia:Third_opinion. If you agree to it, I'll post this conflict there and we can have it resolved quickly. I agree to stand by the decision the third person makes, if you do as well. Mackan 18:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A good idea. In the middle of conflicting opinions, it's always good to get a third opinion. Just H^{editor review} 00:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion First, the request for third opinion was not made according to the guidelines - the description was not neutral, and contained a few arguments in favour of the requesters point of view.

I think it is a good idea to leave the ethnicity of the article subject in the lead section. This is because from the other content of the paragraph, the reader could easily be confused where this all happened - the names of his victims are all western. The ethnicity itself is referred to further on in the article, and it would only make sense to describe it in the lead section as well. Perhaps Korean-Japanese should link to Zainichi Korean though. --User:Krator (t c) 16:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I included the arguments in the request because I wanted to make sure the person who looked into the subject would get a good understanding of the situation, which seemed necessary concerning the terms used, but yeah, I guess it wasn't neutral to include my own opinion. To clarify, I do not think it's a good idea to say he's "Korean-Japanese" and link it to "Zanichi" - because he is NOT a Zainichi. A Zainichi is a Korean national living in Japan. Joji Obara is not a Korean national, so it isn't really fair to say he is Korean-Japanese either - when in fact, he's only Japanese. Pointing out his ethnicity in the opening paragraph does not necessary to me, and if you look at for example User:Necmate and User:ShinjukuXYZ (who first started this conflict), you will notice many anti-Korean (even racialist) edits. Mackan 17:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'd just like to once again mention that WP:MOSBIO#Opening paragraph is in favour of NOT mentioning the ethnicity, unless it has to do with the subject's notability. Mackan 18:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I just realised this article has been canvassed on 2channel. [2], [3]. Mackan 18:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Obligation of Mackan

You should not do the contradicted edit about the Korean people naturalized in Japan. You must change their nationalities at the same time. If you have neutral sense of values

Does anyone mind if I change the title of this section? It's needlessly combative. Just H^{editor review} 20:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Korean list with obligation to change at the same time

They were all naturalized in Japan.

• Masayoshi Son
• Akira Maeda
• Tachihara Masaaki

--Necmate 12:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not made "the contradicted edit"(?) or anything like it. I haven't edited the other articles, and I don't know about those people, whether or not there is any specific reason to state they are Korean Japanese. "Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability". All I'm saying is that it's NOT relevant to this subject's notability. If you want to make similar claims in other articles, feel free to do so. But it doesn't have anything to do with this specific article. Also, why can't you agree to ask for a third opinion? Please answer. Mackan 14:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "korean ancestry" might be the best phrase there, emphasizing their current nationality status, or "Korean-Japanese" with a hyphen, similiar to "Italian-American", which is fairly common. Is this a reasonable compromise? If some more information on the subjects could be shared, that'd help considerably. Just H^{editor review} 20:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The Korean naturalized in Japan is called Korean-Japanese. "Those who succeed about the naturalized Korean are Korean-Japanese. However, the criminal of the naturalized Korean is Japanese." I cannot agree to this Mackan's insistence. --Necmate 13:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been checking this out, and I agree with Mackan. His nationality has nothing to do with his notability, and so doesn't need to be emphasized.

However, in almost every article I have seen on nationalized Japanese citizens, they are usually noted as such in the opening paragraph, such as Lafcadio Hearn or the other examples given above. The reverse is also true, such as Joseph Heco, who is listed as Japanese American rather than just American. I agree that this should not link to Zainichi Korean, however, as he was naturalized and is not zainichi.

Maybe a simple compromise, like:

Joji Obara (織原城二, Obara Joji?, born 1952 in Osaka) is a naturalized Japanese property developer, accused of serial raping and killing and dismembering British hostess Lucie Blackman in the summer of 2000.

Where he is naturalized from is given in detail later, and doesn't really need to be stated in the opening sentence. MightyAtom 02:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a suggestion worth discussing, but I do have some objections. Obara lived his entire life in Japan, so it seems somewhat like you are treating him as a second class citizen when you point out that he is "naturalized". That's the difference, of course, between him and for example Hearn. Mackan 07:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, in the case of Hearn as well as Heco, their ethnicity is definately important to their notability. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mackan (talk • contribs) 07:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm the one who brought WP:MOSBIO#Opening paragraph as a justification for removing "Korean" but I now think I misunderstood the guideline. When I read it, I misread it as "generally not be mentioned". However, the actual text is "generally not be emphasized" and I don't think mentioning he is a Korean Japanese is emphasizing his ethnicity; it's a simple fact, stated in a manner commonly used in various biographic articles. --Kusunose 09:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

He isn't a "Korean Japanese". Mentioning it is emphasizing it. Mackan 09:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(To clarify:) He is only a Japanese national, he has not retained his Korean nationality. He has never lived in Korea (as far as I can gather). His connections to the Korean peninsula seems to be one of ethnicity alone. Mackan 09:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mistake of Mackan

(To clarify:) He is only a Japanese national, he has not retained his Korean nationality. He has never lived in Korea (as far as I can gather). His connections to the Korean peninsula seems to be one of ethnicity alone. Mackan 09:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

He is writing wrong information. Obara was naturalized in Japan at 21 years old. Till then, he was South Korean. [4][5] (You must submit the source if I am wrong. I have gotten tired of what is called "you are SokcsPapet" by Mackan . ) --Necmate 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaken. I didn't say he never was a South Korean national, I said he never lived in South Korea and that he is not a South Korean national now. Mackan 17:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"He is only a Japanese national, he has not retained his Korean nationality." (ちょっと翻訳してみな。２ちゃんで自作自演してるくらいなんだから、日本語ぺらぺらだろ？) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Necmate (talk • contribs) 17:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC).--Necmate 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

He naturalised as a Japanese citizen. Therefore, he has not retained his Korean nationality. What's so difficult? Phonemonkey 08:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Korean ethnicity

There seems to be those who insist that the reference to his Korean ancestry must be mentioned in the opening paragraph, and there are those who insist otherwise. Having looked at the discussion here it seems that the main argument for not including his ethnicity is to be in line with Wikipedia guidelines. It may be useful to add that unnecessary mention of a criminal's ethnicity is against the international norm, both in and outside of Wikipedia. Here are some examples from around the world.

• Tan Duc Thanh Nguyen - Australian criminal (of Vietnamese descent)
• Hasib Hussain - British terrorist (of Pakistani descent)
• Germaine Lindsay - British terrorist (of Jamaican descent)
• Al Capone - American mobster (of Italian descent)

No mention of ethnic origin in the opening paragraph. I accept that there may be other articles where the ethnicity is mentioned in the opening paragraph, but the likelihood would be that these were mentioned with no malicious intent, and deleting it would cause no great controversy. Moving onto arguments for including his ethnicity in the opening paragraph, the only one I see here is that not mentioning it is a "cover-up". To that, I point out that nobody is objecting to mentioning his Korean origins in the main section of the article. What we have now - no mention of ethnicity in the opening paragraph, but fully mentioned in the main article - is in line with international norm and common sense, and so far I haven't seen any reasoning on this discussion page to justify changing this convention for the purpose of this article. Phonemonkey 08:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

>Phonemonkey. All of what you cited are easily known their ethnic origin from their name in first paragraph as "Germaine Maurice Lindsay, also known as Abdullah Shaheed Jamal". I think it is very important to know their ethnic origin to understand the criminal cases. So it is better to be mentioned Korean-Japanese in first paraghaph, as he is naturalized and not using his ethnic name.DDRG 21:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Joji Obara is "easily known" as born to a Korean family too - one line below the opening, there it is, "born Kim XXX to a Korean family". Wikipedia policies state that ethnicity shouldn't be emphazised in the opening statement, that's why it's been removed so many times by so many different editors. We are following rules, how about you? Nobody is "covering up" the fact that his ethnicitiy is Korean - we are only objecting to the obviously racist motivations behind putting "Korean" in front of the "Japanese".Mackan 21:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic distinction is very important information, so usualy mentioned in first paragraph as "Yoichiro Nambu1921– is a Japanese-born American physicist." I think it is natural to be mentioned in first paraghaph if it is good thing or bad thing for the ethinc, and if both were mentioned it is not racism. We should know the fact clearly to solve the problems. DDRG 22:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:WAX is not an argument - there are plenty of articles not 100% in accordance with Wikipedia rules, that doesn't mean this one too should break those. WP:BIO is very clear on this matter, no mention of ethnicity in the opening line. They take precedence over your personal opinions on the matter. Mackan 08:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Ethnic distinction is very important information" - please do explain why. Phonemonkey 22:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vml132f,

You do not seem to be able to post here any reasoning behind your continued reverts. In the absence of any effort on your part to take part in discussion I have taken the liberty of quoting a post on 2ch which I suspect is yours.

"英語版Wikiの Joji Obara の項目の冒頭からKorean JpaneseをただのJapaneseに直し、Koreanであることを隠蔽しようとしているシツコイ朝鮮人がいます。

なぜチョンのせいで日本人の世界的評判を汚されねばならないのか。こいつのほかにも腐るほどの朝鮮系犯罪者がルーツをとことん隠蔽したまま日本人の犯罪として報道されている。これは帰化していなくても同様である。"

Translated: There is a persistant Korean who keeps on changing the phrase "Korean Japanese" to "Japanese" in the opening section of the Joji Obara article on English-language Wiki, in an effort to cover up the fact that he was Korean.

Why do the international reputation of the Japanese people have to be ruined by a chon? (NB: "Chon" is a highly racist term for Koreans). Myriads of other ethnic Korean criminals' origins are covered up and are reported as crimes committed by Japanese. Same applies to those who haven't naturalised.

Now, Vml132f, if the above post is not by yourself and you have an alternative explanation to your insistence that his ethnic origin must be included in the opening paragraph against Wikipedia convention and international norm, then please state it. Until you do so, I can only assume your edits to be motivated by nothing more than racism. And this may be news to you, but there are no Koreans on this page so far, as far as I am aware - you are only trying to take on the common sense of the whole world, Japan included. Pig-ignorant racists like yourself are far more of an embarassment to Japan than Joji Obara ever would be. 差別根性丸出しの嫌韓厨のほうがよっぽど日本の恥さらしなんだよ。Phonemonkey 18:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to add for the benefit of those who do not read Japanese, that the last sentence which I wrote in Japanese above is a near-translation of the preceding English sentence. Phonemonkey 21:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well put, both of you. The wikipedia standard is to not have the ethnicity mentioned in the opening statement, unless directly relevant. In this case, it is not. MightyAtom 02:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

2 channels can be contributed without logging it in. In a word, Phonemonkey can disguise it as a Japanese racist. Perhaps, a discriminatory writing in the Korean might have been written so that Phonemonkey might lower a Japanese reputation. We are having a sense of closeness in Vietnam, Taiwan, Mongolia, and Thailand. Because they do not have hostility in Japan.

ヤレヤレ、お前らって自作自演までして日本の足をひっぱりたいんだなぁ。あと、俺らは外国人が嫌いなんじゃなくて、お前らみたいな日本に寄生しながら、日本に敬意のかけらも見せないで、祖国に対して全く義務を果たさない集団が嫌いなだけだから。俺らはお前ら以外のアジア人（ベトナム・台湾・モンゴル）には敬意を持ってるんで、そこんとこヨロシク。反論なんかできる？）　--61.209.158.124 18:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems this user is now suggesting I fabricated the racist 2ch post to taint the reputation of the Japanese. Perhaps he/she may wish to refer to my edits such as this, this, this and on Talk:Koror-Babeldaob_Bridge and then come back and elaborate on his/her accusation? Your imaginary world may consist entirely of 2channellers and Koreans, but the real world doesn't. Phonemonkey 23:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and 2channel is constantly overflowing with racist posts (see 2channel article) so I don't think 2chanellers need my help in lowering their name. Also please post in English - you started off well enough, why give up halfway through? Phonemonkey 07:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If I may, I came across a Time article that says Mr. Obara is Japanese and says nothing about a Korean ethnicity.^[6] To back this up, I found a couple other articles ^[7][8][9] that say he is of Japanese descent and say nothing of a Korean descent as well. Perhaps until this can be confirmed one way or another, the article could read "of Eastern Asian descent". - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell | Toil)} 21:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Justification for removing "Korean"

See these articles.

• Zao Wou Ki
• Yo-Yo Ma
• François Cheng
• David Chu

and a thousand other articles too. Why this paticular article? He was a South Korean national before and now he is a Korean Japanese. What is so difficult? BTW, Phonemonkey's delusional accusations are not even worth responding to.

Why is it necessary? Can you please explain that? MightyAtom 05:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

My question was "if you are not motivated by racism then what is your reasoning behind insisting that his ethnic origin be mentioned in the opening paragraph against Wiki and international norm". That's not a "delusional accusation" of racism but an invitation for you to enlighten us with an alternative reasoning. So, what is your reasoning? Phonemonkey 06:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

International norm? Don't make me laugh. You just want to cover-up the fact. I think you are the real racist. I just want the accurate fact to be presented. It's not only his ethnicity but olso his ex-nationality and he even intentionally changed his name to a very Japanesy one. It's a simple fact that he is a Korean Japanese. Is the word Chinese-American racism? If it is, Why don't you go work on a thousand other articles too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.210.221.13 (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Clearly nothing is being covered up, as that is all included in the article. The problem is that it is not necessary for the opening statement. Can you provide a reason why this information is relevant to the opening statement?MightyAtom 09:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I told you that an accurate fact should be presented. Can you provide a reason why this information has to be omitted at all cost? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vml132f (talk • contribs) 09:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes I can and here it is. I wouldn't have cared if it said Korean Japanese or merely Japanese, I am not personally interested - however I noticed that there is an edit war going on so I looked into what the discussion is about.

And it seems that the only argument put forward by those who want to put "Korean Japanese" is that it would somehow be a cover-up not to do so. However, as repeatedly pointed out, his ethnic background is fully mentioned in the main article, so this argument is redundant. I'm not going to go about editing mentions on Chinese Americans because they aren't malicious. However in the case of this article, in the absence of any valid reasoning why his ethnic origin be explicitly mentioned in the opening line, I can only assume the insistence is racially motivated.

So now it is your turn to answer some questions.

• 1) What is your justification for changing "Japanese property developer of Korean ancestry" to "Korean Japanese"?
• 2) If it isn't the international norm, why do you think media reports do not report on the suspect's ethnic origin?
• 3) Why is it a cover up when everything about his ethnic origin is in the main article? Phonemonkey 13:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The relevant information is included in the Biography section. There is no need for it in the opening statement.MightyAtom 10:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• The word Japanese also means Japanese ethnicity. It is misleading to refer him as Japanese property developer. The readers could misunderstand that he is ethnic Japanese when they only read the opening paragraph alone. And it obviously contradicts the main article. "Korean Japanese property developer" is the most simple expression that is also consistent with the main article.

1) If a Brazilian of Japanese origin commits a crime in Japan, is he a "Brazilian criminal" or a "Japanese criminal"? Yes, obviously the former. The misunderstanding would only arise due to a mis-interpretation that the word "Japanese" refers to ethnicity, not nationality.

2) any ambiguity is cleared in the main artickle. It's not contradiction, it's clarification. Phonemonkey 21:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are joking. Deliberately using the expression knowing that it might cause misinterpretation is called misleading. And your so-called clarification won't happen when they don't refer to the main article. If it simply reads "Korean-Japanese property developer", this sort of misinterpretation could be easily avoided. This is not the issue of racism. There is absolutely no reason to so desperately omit "Korean" from the sentence. If you wanna see some media coverages of Japanese Brazilian criminals, they are clearly using the word Japanese-Brazilian.

• http://www.iza.ne.jp/news/newsarticle/event/accident/38233/
• http://www.nishinippon.co.jp/news/wordbox/display/4653/
• http://www.hokkoku.co.jp/newspack/kokusai2007021301000188.html
• http://www.shikoku-np.co.jp/national/international/article.aspx?id=20070224000019 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vml132f (talk • contribs) 17:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

This is about Wikipedia standards, not Japanese newspaper standards. But, as it happens, Wikipedia is based on international standards, where ethnicity of criminals are usually not mentioned. Wikipedia policies are clear on how this should be handled - no mention in the opening line. You say we are desperately "omitting" it, but the desperate one here is you, who as already been blocked once for 3RR and is canvassing this page on 2ch. Please stop violating wikipedia policies. Mackan 19:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You seem to be saying that if a member of an ethnic minority commits a crime, their ethnic origin must be mentioned in the opening paragraph, in case someone "misinterprets" it to mean that it was a member of the ethnic majority. Is this your argument? Phonemonkey 07:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Rfc: mention of ethnicity

To summarise the dispute for the information of visitors to this article, it is whether to include mention of a rape / murder suspect's ethnic origin in the opening paragraph. The suspect was born in Japan to Korean immigrants; he was what is known as a zainichi Korean until he naturalised to become a Japanese citizen, and currently holds Japanese nationality only. Those in favour state that to call him "Japanese" instead of "Korean Japanese" in the opening paragraph is covering up his Korean roots. Those against it state that his Korean origin is clearly mentioned in the biography section so there is no cover-up, and that it is against wikipedia convention to state a criminal's ethnic origin in the opening paragraph. Any comments welcome. 19:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Coming in off the RFC posting. I see no reason for his Korean background to be in the lede paragraph. His nationality is in the paragraph which is useful because it tells us a little bit about his legal allegiances, and since he's in wikipedia because of his association with a sensational crime that seems helpful. The family heritage/birthplace is part of his background, like an educational degree, previous careers, etc., and can be listed in the body of the article if relevant to fleshing him out as a person. --lquilter 22:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• I think that I'd remove any reference to ethnicity at all in the first paragraph. It's a race/nationality issue, and any mention that early simply confuses the reader. His background is mentioned soon enough, and the Korean Japanese status is cleared up there. It doesn't add anything to mention his nationality here, when it is explained elsewhere more satisfactorily. Instead of referring to him as a "Japanese property developer...", it could read "a property developer from Japan..." That doesn't mention any racial issues, and leaves his ethnic origins to be discussed later, in the biography section. Andyparkerson 09:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Would this be a compromise which others are willing to accept? Phonemonkey 14:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I just posted on Andyparkerson's talkpage and asked him to revise his suggestions. Copy and paste: That would seem discriminatory to people of different ethnicities living in Japan, as Japanese. He isn't only from Japan - he IS Japanese. Suggesting that somebody from Japan isn't "a true" Japanese national unless they have the right ethnicity is highly racist, and would be the same as suggesting that a Jew who has lived his entire life in the States, and has a US passport, should not be referred to as "American" but "from the USA". I do not want people to think I'm unreasonable but I cannot agree with that wording. Mackan 15:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

My proposed compromise would suggest no such thing. It merely states the facts in neutral language. It would identify what his occupation was "property developer" and where he lives "from Japan". The problem lies in that "Japanese" refers both to a nationality and to an ethnicity. It is confusing, and problem-laden. I merely suggested using unambiguous language.Andyparkerson 15:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have a look on the comment I made on your talkpage you will see that I'm not calling you a racist, in fact, I stated that I'm happy to assume you're the very opposite of a racist. I was just trying to tell you the implications I think it would carry, and if I offended you, I apologize, I tried my best not to. But, how about this, "Japanese national"? I think it's unambigious and it does not make it sound as if he were a second class citizen. Mackan 15:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Andyparkerson, thanks for your suggestion. I have to point out though, that pretty much all biographies on Wiklipedia start off by mentioning the person's nationality. If someone is described as Japanese, one would assume it referred to a Japanese national, not, for example, a Russian of Japanese decent (like Irina Hakamada. Phonemonkey 16:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Any of those would work: "Japanese," "Japanese national." Maybe even hyphenating it would suffice, such as "Korean-Japanese." There's a paragraph detailing his ethnicity, so I don't think it's a problem of covering anything up or suppressing information. As long as it's written so that the casual reader can see that he lives in Japan, it's fine. Andyparkerson 16:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Covering up" on Wikipedia isn't so much an issue in itself. What's significant is the fact that the Korean ethnicity of a suspect/convict often becomes a big issue in the Japanese society, and that is the noteworthy part. Some news media in Japan choose not to disclose the ethnic identity of Korean suspects/convicts because some Korean residents in Japan are concealing their Korean background to avoid discrimination, usually by using tsumei, a Japanized name, which is often good enough a disguise because it's hard to distinguish the Koreans from the Japanese otherwise. On the other hand some conservatives and rightists opposing immigration, the increasing number of crimes committed by foreign/non-Japanese population, and the presence of Korean residents openly supporting the North Korean regime, make a big deal out of it. Even though their doing so may be politically motivated and prejudiced, the fact that a small but significant minority of the Japanese people take this seriously is noteworthy. The ethnic identity of suspects/convicts like Obara is also important because incidents like this and Issei Sagawa's murder are often used to strengthen the old stereotype that the Japanese people are sexually perverted and obsessed with white women. --Saintjust 15:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why his ethnicitiy is mentioned - in the main text. Do you think it's necessary that it should be included in the opening line as well? Also, suggesting that this would strengthen stereotypes about Japanese perversity seems a bit absurd to me. Obara is Japanese, like it or not. He has lived his entire life in Japan. Would you think it's important to point out the ethnicity of Jewish US criminal gunshooters in the opening paragraph, because if you don't, you strengthen the stereotype of "real" (white?) US nationals as being obsessed with guns? I bet there is a lot of anti-semites and Neo-Nazis who would like to see it included, but should Wikipedia obey to these notions because of that? Again, I'm talking about the opening paragraph and not about including it in the main body of the text. Mackan 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, this user has apparently been involved in several Korean/Japanese edit wars and once made this charming assumption about another user, probably after doing a WHOIS ip check: "A Korean kid from New Zealand lied about the sources of his bogus "essay" and identity. How typical". Maybe not the most neutral of users. Mackan 16:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

* Saintjust, you're not wrong, but the issue you've raised belongs to ethnic issues in Japan, unless there is a good reason to link it to Obara specifically. For example, the use of tsumeiby Zainichi Koreans may be a noteworthy topic, but as far as I am aware, the name "Joji Obara" is not a tsumei (pseudonym), it is his real name which he legally changed it to when he naturalized.

* If anyone has their prejudice reinforced by an action of one individual, that is unfortunate, but that's their problem, not Wikipedia's. Phonemonkey 16:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Rapist category

The [[Category:Japanese rapists|Obara, Joji]] should be removed. He hasn't been convicted. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 20:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit battle

Please define Korean Japanese.　--Azukimonaka 03:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)　If the promise of Korean Japanese is not made, I do not think that the edit battle ends. (I think that this discussion relates to Spree killer of Virginia Tech massacre.) --Azukimonaka 15:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho Seung-hui is obviously completely different from Joji Obara. He was a South Korean national, so of course it should be mentioned in the lead. Mackan 15:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)　　　

A Japanese person of Korean origin. That much is undisputed. Phonemonkey 14:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

According to your insistence, does not Obara meet the requirement of Korean Japanese?--Azukimonaka 15:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course he does. The dispute isn't about whether or not he is Korean-Japanese. It is about whether or not it warrents a mention in the opening paragraph. If an American criminal is African-American, should his wikipedia article start off by pointing this out in the first sentence? Phonemonkey 15:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it? I think that "Korean Japanese" could just as well refer to a person holding both a Korean and a Japanese nationality. While I know that this is an impossibility today as neither country allows dual citizenships, it could still be misunderstood to carry such a meaning, in my opinion. Mackan 14:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Masutatsu Oyama is not Zainichi Korean but Korean Japanese according to your insistence. --Azukimonaka 15:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never made any such insistence and I have never made any comment relating to any Japanese national with Korean ancestry except for Joji Obara. Wikipedia guidelines state that the ethnicitiy should not be mentioned in the first paragraph, unless there is a specific reason. I have never heard of Masautatsu Oyama before and whether or not his ethnicity is relevant to his article, I'll leave up to others to decide. Also, you are obviously misunderstanding what I wrote, unless you meant to say that, according to me, he is not "Korean Japanese" but Japanese. As I said, I have no objections to anybody changing his article in that way, but whether or not his ethnicity is relevant, I've no idea.Mackan 15:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please make the rule

If the rule is not made, editors will write Korean Japanese, Zainichi Korean, and Japanse without permission.

• A Parents are Koreans. A Japanese nationality is owned.
• B One of parents are Koreans. A Japanese nationality is owned.
• C The Korean naturalized in Japan is parents from Korea. A Japanese nationality is owned.
• D The nationality is Korea though lived in Japan.
• E The nationality is Korea though it was born in Japan.
• F Person who is born in Korea, and naturalized from Korea in Japan
• G Person who is born in Japan, and naturalized from Korea in Japan

--Azukimonaka 16:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your post.

• A, B, C, F and G are Japanese.
• D & E are Koreans. Long term residents of Japan are Zainichi Koreans.

Do you agree? Phonemonkey 16:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you make it to English to which these choices are refined? --Azukimonaka 17:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand, could you please clarify the question? Phonemonkey 18:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is awfully irrelevant, Azukimonaka. We are discussing whether the ethnicity of one person, Joji Obara, should be mentioned in the opening line or not. You are obviously discussing something completely different. You might want to take this discussion to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles).Mackan 19:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not Zainichi Korean

This isn't going to solve the dispute, but one thing Joji Obara is definitely not is a zainichi korean. As it says in the article, zainichi koreans are "not ethnic Koreans who have acquired Japanese nationality through naturalization." Currently this is what the article is linking to. MightyAtom 01:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Phonemonkey 07:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Breaking news!

Can we get this article unprotected? Joji Obara has been sentenced to life in prison for multiple rapes, but aquitted of murder.MightyAtom 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6241831.stm

Yep, ethnic origin aside, this article needs updating. I agree not to touch the disputed section until we've had a few more comments in the Rfc section below. Phonemonkey 07:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Please unprotect. Sparkzilla 09:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Obara was never charged with murder, and therefore cannot be acquitted of that crime. Neoyamaneko (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Rfc Ethnic origin mentions

Statements by those already involved in dispute

Just to summarise. This guy is a Japanese national who was born and bred in Japan, although he is a member of an ethnic minority (ethnic Korean). It is abnormal and against international common sense to explicitly state a criminal's ethnic minority origin in the opening paragraph, unless there is good reason to do so - his ethnic background is soon enough explained anyway alongside his other background information like where he was born, education etc. An article is unlikely to start off by saying "so-and-so is an African-American rapist" or "XXXX is a Black criminal from Britain" are they? Those who insist that his minority ethnic origin must be included in the opening paragraph have so far given three reasonings:

• 1) That it would be a cover-up not to do so. (It won't, because it is mentioned fully in the biography section, and why would anyone want to cover it up?)

• 2) Ethnic Koreans in Japan who achieve fame through "good" things have their wikipedia article open with mention of their ethnicity. (It's because no-one contests it because it is less controversial, but if anyone wants to go there and contest it, they are free to do so).

• 3) "Obara is a Japanese businessman" also means he is ethnic Japanese. (Not everyone who holds Japanese nationality are ethnic Japanese. What about Ainu? Should they always be referred to as “an Ainu” as opposed to “Japanese”? Of course not.Furthermore, ethnic Japanese who are not Japanese nationals are very unlikely to be referred to as “A Japanese businessman”)

There is no reason why he cannot simply be described as Japanese (in line with international convention such as a BBC article here - the beast with a human face) and I question the motives of those who insist that his ethnic minority status be explicitly mentioned at the start. Phonemonkey 09:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:MOSBIO#Opening paragraph. The only reason this conflict has kept on for this long is because it is being externally canvassed by obviously racist Japanese 2ch users (active on a thread called "Let's protest against the Korean forgery on Wikipedia!", filled with racist and anti-Korean comments). Mackan 08:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• Crime committed by Korean or Burakumin is a politically sensitive issue in Japan. There is unwritten rule in Japanese media never to reveal accused's Korean or Buraku background. So far, Obara's Korean background has never been mentioned in Japanese major media outlet. Because Obara's victim happened to be Westerners, his ethnic background was outed in English media and then reported in 2chan where blatantly racist post about Korean and criminality is rampant. If any editor from Japan is insisting the inclusion of Korean background in the intro, then the likely purpose is to imply the link between Korean and criminality, the exact reason why wikipedia does not allow inclusion of race/ethnicity in the intro unless relevant. Tell these Japanese editors to go to place like stomfront. Vapour
• I was about to fall on the side of inclusion of the ethnicity, because I was not aware of (and could not find reference to) the guideline that has been called into question. However, having reviewed it, especially point 3 concerning opening paragraphs, I suggest exclusion of the ethnicity from the lead section. While it may be "relevant" to some people that he is Korean, "…it is not relevant to the subject's notability." In other words, he is not known because of his ethnicity. The BBC article confirms that he has notoriety due to his actions, not his biology. I reject the first of the supporting reasons listed in agreement with the supplied rebuttal. As to the second reason, I think good faith compels all those who are so stringent about WP:MOSBIO to correct the other pages alluded to (Masayoshi Son, Akira Maeda, Tachihara Masaaki, and any others), by removing ethnicity from their lead sections. Lastly, with regard to the third reason, perhaps his being a property developer should be excluded from the lead section, since nobody cares (no notoriety) what he did for a living.—Red Baron 23:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Joji Obara, a naturalised Japanese (of Korean decent)" is clear, relevant, accurate and fair. Sparkzilla 14:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What about WP:MOSBIO#Opening paragraph?Mackan 15:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a guideline, not a policy. Frankly, I don't see what the fuss is about. Describing him as a naturalised Japanese citizen is accurate and relevant. Sparkzilla 22:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is accurate. I hate to sound petty though (sorry Sparkzilla), but I still get a feeling that to describe him as naturalised implies that he is an immigrant, which he isn't - he's a member of an ethnic minority born and bred in Japan, on equal terms as Ainu, Ryukyuan or ethnic Japanese. While I agree that it is clear and accurate, I personally don't see the necessity. I don't for a second doubt that you have no racially malicious intentions so I don't really want to contest your point, but I hope you see where I am at. Phonemonkey 23:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That he was brought up in Japan is clear in the body text. May I humbly suggest that the above text is used as a reasonable compromise, otherwise this issue, which is certainly minor, will drag on forever. Sparkzilla 00:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is principally important. Does Wikipedia treat people of Korean ethnicity different from Black Americans? I hope not. Mackan 07:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As for compromises, I could agree to "Japanese national", although I still prefer "Japanese".Mackan 07:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

*He is a former South Korean national. It is nonsense to compare him with Ainu or Korean-Jpanese with Black American. It seems that some users are so eager to remove "Korean" from the paragraph that they don't care about intelligibility of the article at all. "Korean-Japanese property developer" is accurate and simple enough. I don't understand why some users are trying so hard to come up with any reasoning to simply remove "Korean" from the article. In the same time those same users are so eager to emphasize "Japanese" in the opening paragraph. Do they have something against the Japanese or they just don't realize their double standard? 61.210.161.91 09:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I am following WP:MOSBIO#Opening paragraph which states that the opening paragraph should give the person's nationality and that "in the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable".
• Do I have something against Japan? No, quite the opposite. Highlighting a criminal's ethnic origin in the opening paragraph smacks of racism. By extention this makes Japan appear racist, because this is not the international norm. This is precisely why I am opposed to it. Phonemonkey 10:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• He is a naturalised Japanese citizen. It therefore makes sense to say where he was naturalised from. It's not racism, it doesn't make "Japan" appear racist. It's a plain fact, and is plain common sense to include it. There are many, many examples. See Rupert_Murdoch (Australian American) or Barack Obama African American. Sparkzilla 12:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• It makes sense mentioning it, but I can't see you making any specific argument for including it in the introduction. Rupert Murdouch has dual citizenship and Barack Obama's ethnicity is definately relevant to his notability. Neither have anything in common with Joji Obara. Mackan 12:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a common occurrence in Japanese anonymous posting to link Korean and criminality especially rape. Many has blamed Obara's Korean background for his crimes and many has bemoaned that Japanese are getting undue blame for what Korean did, never mind that Obara is a Japanese national who never grew up in Korea. The guideline is specific. Include ethnicity in intro only if it is relevant. If anyone think that his Korean background is relevant to this crime, you would be more suited to place like Stomfront. This guideline not to emphasise ethinicity in intro is specifically intended to avoid this kind of racist spin. No, This is not policy but just a guideline. This merely mean that you need exceptionally unique circumstance to justify violation of a policy. You need fairly unique circumstance to violate guideline. Just because something is a guideline does not mean one can willfully ignore it without due reason. No Japanese can faint ignorance of Korean stereotype regarding criminality, particular Korean men's violence toward women, so be very aware of any Japanese editor who insist intro inclusion.I strongly object to including this fact into intro. If you want to be technically correct, remove Japanese reference in intro as well and merely mention where the crimes took place, which is Japan. Anyone who can read few more sentences can figure out that he is a Korean Japanese. Vapour

P.S. I have come across many comments in past few days where this particular crime is linked to Japanese overall culture particular Japanese men's attitude toward women, never mind that, by any measure of statistics, there are higher rate of violence against women, especially against sex workers in Anglo Saxon society. I have also noticed that majority of such posting are done by men, and none of the comment would have been acceptable if the word Japanese men is switched with black men, It is amazing how ignorance feed racism. Once one is out of political correctness radar, true colour comes out in abundance. It's exactly the same in the Japanese anonymous world such as 2chan. Given the persistence of stereotype about Japanese, Korean or white men in respective societies, it is imperative that we follow guideline. Vapour

Your comments are basically an enormous piece of original research. You are claiming false charges of racism by other editors based on ZERO sources. The only person who is saying his Korean background is relevant to the crime is you, based on some idea of sterotype that YOU have, based on anonymous messageboard posts! 2Channel is NOT an acceptable Wikipedia source. Look again at your post and the words you use: "Japanese anonymous posting(s)..." are not an acceptable way to influence inclusion on Wikipedia. "Many have bemoaned..." Who exactly? "No Japanese can..." etc. That is all wrong. There are no credible sources that say his Korean upbringing played a part in the crime, and even if they did it would still not change the plain truth of who Obara is.

His Korean background may or may not be relevant to the crime, but it is a fair and relevant description of who Obara is. He is a Japanese-Korean. It's the plain truth. It's not racist to accurately describe something as it is. Ethinicity/nationality is mentioned in hundreds of other pages in the front paragraph. See Masayoshi Son for an equivalent example.

Frankly I think this whole discussion is extremely stupid and tiresome. If it continues you should take it to the BLP noticeboard for more input. Sparkzilla 01:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What's up with the hostility and incivility? And please respond to my comment further up. Vapour isn't basing his comments on OR, but I bet he has had a look at the 2ch thread where this article has been canvassed. If you understand Japanese, I recommend you to have a look at it.Mackan 08:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, WP:OR does not apply to comments on talk pages, nor is it relevant to any of Vapours' reasoning. While a 2ch thread certainly isn't a reliable source, matter of fact IS this article has been canvassed multiple times there, and I find it hard to believe you would deny many users from that thread have been active here. Again, if you know Japanese, have a look at the thread.Mackan 18:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I read about Joji Obara from BBC, and came here to get more information. I was surprised to see the Wikipedia racist characterization, when there was no hint in other reputable news organizations. His ethnicity is a relevant part of a paragraph on biographic background when you have a long in-depth article, but why does his "Korean"ness belong in the first line? Similar thing to the Seung Hui Cho case. His South Korean background was briefly news as the even was breaking, as people learned that he was a student, that he worked alone, the description of his first victims, whether he was a gamer, all kinds of identifying details. But pretty quickly reputable newspapers began to recognize referring to him as South Korean was misleading, irrelevant, and unintentionally racist, since for all intents and purposes, he was a product of U.S. culture and his crime was a result of a sick mind, utterly unrelated to his ethnicity or country of citizenship or age of naturalization. Emphasizing the ethnicity in the introduction is just immature, unprofessional, and inappropriate for a "serious" reference publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Occurv (talk • contribs)

• "a naturalised Japanese citizen (of Korean origin)" is clear, relevant, accurate and fair. Mackan's racism against the Japanese is disgusting and intolerable. What is the point of changing "a naturalised Japanese citizen" to "a Japanese national"? Octoploid 08:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Octoploiod, if you actually believe that Mackan is motivated by racism then no wonder you insist on reverting his edits. I on the other hand believe he is anything but - if he is anti-Japanese why would he move to Japan, learn Kansai-ben and concentrate his edits on all things Japan-related? If you can't back up your accusation with a path of reasoning, please stop trying to second-guess his motives and actually look at what he (and I) are trying to say with an open mind - you might see what we are trying to say. I (and I'm sure Mackan too) are not trying to find excuses to leave the ethnicity out of the opening - we're only stating the actual reasons why we think it's appropriate to leave it out. Why do you think the BBC refers to him as "Japanese"? Please take a minute to think about it from a different viewpoint - read his /my / Rfc comments, try to digest it, and if you still disagree, come back with an actual counterargument. Phonemonkey 20:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and I'm sorry for calling him a racist. I read your postings and I think you are pretty rational guy and I dont want you to get me wrong I'm not insisting that his ethnicity should be in the head of the article I dont care about his ethnicity. I'm just trying to settle the dispute. Why cant we simply put the truth which is "a naturalized japanese citizen"? We can leave the ethnicity not mentioned that way. I think changing "a naturalized Japanese citizen" to "Japanese national" on this one needs a pretty strong reason and none are provided. Mackan's calling "Japanese national" a compromise is a dumbest thing I've ever heard It's not a compromise at all. I think this guy wants this dispute to last forever. Octoploid 10:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The compromise is that somebody suggested simply "Japanese" might be mistaken for "Japanese ethnicity". Saying "Japanese national" is a clarification and therefore a compromise. You ask for a strong reason and several have already been posted here, most importantly, WP:BIO which states the ethnicity should NOT be emphasized in the opening paragraph unless there is any specific reason to do so, which there isn't. Mackan 11:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

There is still no clear consensus, but as I see it, a majority is against including any mention of ethnicity in the first paragraph, and for replacing whatever it currently says with "Japanese". There is a higher number of people who have been supportive of this, and the few people who opposed it, Sparkzilla, Octoploid and Saintjust have not replied to some very legitimate questions directed towards them, and as such I think their opposition is rendered invalid. They have argued for the inclusion of his ethnictity (for which there already is a clear consensus), but they have not made any specific arguments why it should be included in the first paragraph. If no such arguments are made, I will take the liberty to change "naturalized Japanese citizen" to "Japanese". Mackan 09:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing this, I see no problem with simple listing him as "Japanese" in the first paragraph. It is more concise, and anyone reading the article will have all the information he needs as to his origin and citizen status. Andyparkerson 21:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

11 days have passed since I posted here and nobody has protested. I'm going to change it now. Mackan 15:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain removing a dead source and replacing it with a "fact"-tag is the best way to go? Wouldn't it be better keeping the link, stating that it is now dead? I mean, that's something which probably was in print as well, just because it's can't be find online anymore doesn't mean it never existed. Mackan 14:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The usual policy-based solution is to leave it and note that it is dead, per Mackan's reasoning. Conversely, you could try to find a cached version, but you would still need to note it is a dead link. MSJapan 21:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Mackan is lying about the consensus, a majority is not against including any mention of Korean. I was almost ready to compromise with "naturalized Japanese citizen" but this extreme PoV pusher changed my mind. He wants the part "Japanese" emphasized, and thinks simply putting the title "Consenus" on his personal selfish opinion makes it a consensus. Mackan has been posting comments about this article on some anonymous bbs, some of his comments are derogatory remarks about the Japanese in general including racial slurs like "Japs" and "Nips". Mackan's intension of this dispute is coming from his pure racism, that's why he can't even agree to "naturalized Japansese citizen" which is pretty concise and accurate and clearly doesn't even include "Korean". His comments on the BBS "Japs are the biggest perv ......" "Japs are the ugliest......"etc explain everything. Vml132f 08:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right. -- Mackan ^{talk | c} 17:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Vml132f, you say "a majority is not against including any mention of Korean". *Nobody* here even dreamt of suggesting we should exclude any mention of his Korean ethnicity. As for "naturalized Japanese citizen", while it is certainly accurate, I am moderately against it simply because it unnecessarily (and inaccurately) implies that he is an immigrant and is therefore detrimental to the quality of the article. Phonemonkey 22:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference bit-rot

The second reference now redirects to the first reference, which does not have all of the content it needs. This leaves a good deal of the article unreferenced, as #2 is used 5 times. Can anyone find new references to replace it? Vancleef 22:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No one having found replacements, I removed that citation, replacing it with citation-needed where no other cites existed. Vancleef 00:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain removing a dead source and replacing it with a "fact"-tag is the best way to go? Wouldn't it be better keeping the link, stating that it is now dead? I mean, that's something which probably was in print as well, just because it's can't be found online anymore doesn't mean it never existed. Mackan 14:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Merged Blackman's article

I've merged Blackman's article because it wasn't a biography as much as a description of her rape. Since Wikipedia is not news, we should respect basic human dignity here and stick to the trial.-Wafulz 22:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

My name is Junichiro Hironaka, a licensed Japanese attorney, and I am writing to the administrators on behalf of my client, Mr. Joji Obara. Please be advised that Mr. Obara is the subject of a false, misleading and libelous article appearing on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joji_Obara. The administrators are hereby requested to remove in its entirety without delay. Kindly note that a similar request was made regarding a substantially identical article on Mr. Obara appearing in Japanese on the Wikipedia Japan site. In response to my request, the administrators reviewed the article and have deleted it in its entirety from the site. Since the English article contains essentially the same false, misleading and libelous information, it should also be deleted in its entirety. Without going into all of the false, misleading and libelous statements in the article, administrators should be aware of the undisputed and verifiable fact that the Tokyo District Court has acquitted Mr. Obara on the charge of murdering Ms. Lucie Blackman. The article makes it appear as if Mr. Obara is guilty of this tragic crime, even though he has been found not guilty. Moreover, the article implies that Mr. Obara has raped as many as 400 women. This is completely false and not supported by any reliable evidence. There are many additional specific statements that are false, misleading and libelous in the English article. For the reasons stated above, the administrators are requested to remove the article in English on Mr. Joji Obara from Wikipedia without delay. I will continue to monitor Wikipedia. The administrators' prompt and affirmative response to this request will be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.131.61.24 (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Hironaka, it is unlikely that this article will be deleted, because Mr. Obara appears to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. To address the problems with this article, perhaps the best option is to contact OTRS (see the instructions at Wikipedia:OTRS#Contacting_OTRS), and the volunteers there will attempt to address your concerns. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If you truly are Mr. Obara's lawyer, you need to contact Mike Godwin, the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyer, at the email address or telephone number listed there. WilyD 20:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth

Does anyone know it? F W Nietzsche (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

He is Korean with Korean nationality

He is Korean. His real name is Kim Sung Jong and if he has been nationalized to Japanese, he would not be allowed to have two names. And now he can't get nationalized because criminals cannot get nationalized to Japanese.

Zainichi Koreans (Koreans living Japan) are allowed to have two names (Japanese-like name and their real name).

So having two names, his nationality is Korea. Wiki kitkat (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Joji Obara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090217230502/http://home.kyodo.co.jp:80/modules/fstStory/index.php?storyid=414799 to http://home.kyodo.co.jp/modules/fstStory/index.php?storyid=414799

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Joji Obara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090218114328/http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070424f1.html to http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070424f1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927092843/http://timesonline.typepad.com/times_tokyo_weblog/2007/04/joji_obara_not_.html to http://timesonline.typepad.com/times_tokyo_weblog/2007/04/joji_obara_not_.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705182248/http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/obara-pleads-not-guilty-in-appeal-trial-over-killing-of-blackman to http://www.japantoday.com/category/crime/view/obara-pleads-not-guilty-in-appeal-trial-over-killing-of-blackman

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

"CORRUPT CRIMES" episode

Obara and the crimes were featured in the true-crime television program "Corrupt Crimes," in an episode subtitled "Drugging Your Dates," which was first broadcast on October 16, 2016, and is presently in repeat syndication. This program reports that the drug used in addition to chloroform was ROHYPNOL.Starhistory22 (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)