Wikipedia

Talk:Naomi Osaka/Archive 3

< Talk:Naomi Osaka
Latest comment: 1 year ago by SJy2iI83VJ in topic Choosing citizenship
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Recent edits

Latest comment: 6 years ago37 comments4 people in discussion

Ricecenter has edited to restore his previous edit in its entirety, ignoring the problems I pointed out when reverting parts of it one item at a time, such as the fact that Facebook is not a reliable source, and the fact that whole sections, such as this, don't even make sense. He has tried to "discuss" his edits by means of a long edit summary, but he needs to make his case here on the talk page. For instance, some sources do state her residence as Boca Raton, but the majority of sources say Fort Lauderdale, so that would need to be thrashed out here. I'm not sure what he means by She registered the nationality with Japan in 2011 to the International Tennis Federation, but she is not registered with the Japan Tennis Association. The Japan Tennis Association was discovered in 2013 and has not registered until 2014, but Brook Larner in the New York Times seems to be saying that she was registered with the JTA at age 13, i.e. 2010. If you have reliable sources to the contrary you need to tell us what they are – not link to archive.org and Facebook – and what exactly they say; it's not enough to just cite a splodge of Japanese. Please address each one of your changes and explain why you think they are justified. Scolaire (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I am poor at English, so I use google translation, so I am worried about the lack of detailed nuances.I am Japanese and usually editing Japanese version. The English version complements the missing places to reference. I do not know abroad about editing but I think that Japan is more detailed than others.
Regarding her residence, in the interview of a Japanese magazine in October 2018, she is practicing at the Robert Tennis Academy of Boca Raton and living there. And The official profile of the WTA is also Boca Raton. It has already been edited as follows.By May 2018, Osaka had been training at Evert Tennis Academy in Boca Raton, Florida. The majority of information sources are called Fort Lauderdale, but for example if she lived by a year ago it would be. But now if her move and Boca Raton, you should write now.
Regarding registration with the Japan Tennis Association, As I edited, she chose to be born country to the ITF, but she did not register with the Japan Tennis Association and she never went to the match, so the Japan tennis association did not know. It is said that "Brook Larner in the New York Times seems to be saying that she was registered with the JTA at age 13". But In the Sports Hochi of 2014, 日本協会には登録していないが、国際連盟には「日本選手」として登録 is. In the Nikkan Sports of 2016,大坂なおみ日米争奪戦　両方の国籍、日本に秘策も "13年9月に有明で開かれた東レ・パンパシフィックで、予選に出場していた大坂にJTAが手を差し伸べた。今大会で大坂に同行する吉川真司代表コーチが「すごい才能」と報告" is. Why do reporters of the New York Times in 2018 know the relationship between Japan Tennis Association and Naomi Osaka in 2011 from the Japanese sports newspaper in 2014 and 2016? Did you cover the Japan Tennis Association or Naosumi Osaka? Is not it a guess from the fact that Prior to participating in ITF match in Japan at the age of 14 in 2011?
this makes no sense. It is said, If she is an ordinary player, I agree that she does not need to, but in her case not only the tennis skill but also to describe the background of choosing Japan national team, not the USA national team is necessary.--Ricecenter (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Ricecenter, the problem is that because of your poor English, we cannot understand what you, or your sources, are saying. When I put the Nikkan Sports article through Google Translate, I get At the Toray Pan Pacific held in Ariake in September 2001 [not 2013], the Japan Tennis Association (JTA) handed out Osaka who had been in qualifying. Shinji Yoshikawa...reports that he is 'great talent.' I have no idea what "handed out" means. In your edit, you have said So Shinji Yoshikawa Japan Fed Cup team coach was discovered and reported 'Great talent' to the Japan Tennis Association. This makes no sense. "Shinji Yoshikawa was discovered" has nothing to do with Naomi Osaka! The Google translation of the July 2014 Hochi article does say Although not registered in the Japan Association, the International League registered as 'Japanese athletes'. I don't know what the "International League" is, but I'm guessing that it is the International Tennis Federation. Can you be registered as Japanese with the ITF if you are not registered with the JTA? The WTA in July 2014 had her as "Osaka, Naomi, Japan". Can you register with the WTA as Japanese if you are not registered with the JTA? Maybe Fyunck(click) or some other tennis expert can answer that for us, but at the moment a machine translation of an archived copy of one article is not enough to state this as fact. If you could find out the date that she did become registered with the JTA, that would be helpful.
Reliable sources up to September 2018 (e.g. this one) continued to say that she lived in Fort Lauderdale but trained in Boca Raton, but this article (English translation) is very persuasive, with a photo of the house, and talking about it being 5 minutes away from the Evert Tennis Academy and 30 minutes away from her previous home. That can be changed in the article. Scolaire (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure of all the intricacies in registration. They MUST register with the ITF where they give them the proper way to spell their names in English, their age, and country they represent. A country must say you represent them. I can't just say I represent Antarctica without Antarctica agreeing that I represent them. How that detail gets worked out with the ITF I don't know but without representation you can't play professional or junior tennis. Afterwards the ITF shares that info with the WTA and Fed Cup. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for her residence acknowledging Boca Raton.However, Regarding registration is disappointing.I will answer because you have questions about ITF registration.IPIN is required to register ITF. Family Name:Gender:Nation:Date of Birth:submit. She has no Junior achievement so enter Request an IPIN. Later on in various ways, It is completed with Payment. Players chose nation as Japan, but the tennis association will not be registered. To register with the Japan Tennis Association, you can not do it automatically even if you register with ITF. Players will Create account from Registration and Qualification. The rest is almost the same as ITF. But her and her father can not read Japanese. Her mother can read Japanese, but she does not know tennis. Registration costs money. She does not play the JTA sponsored game, so I do not think she is registering without need. I think that 2014 Hochi is correct, the New York Times mistook Nation and tennis association. She has not registered until 2017 Fed Cup national team.
I am supplementing because Nikkan Sports has not translated well. I will supplement Japanese first. "手を差し伸べた "is difficult, so replace it with" 援助を提案した ". (20)13年9月に有明コロシアムで開かれた東レ・パンパシフィックオープン予選に出場していた大坂(なおみ)にJTAが(援助を提案した)。今大会で(2016年全豪オープン)で大坂(なおみ)に同行する吉川真司(日本フェドカップ)代表コーチが(大坂なおみを)「すごい才能」と(JTAに)報告。I will change it so that I can read it.　"吉川真司代表コーチは2016年全豪オープンで大坂なおみに同行をしました。吉川真司は2013年9月に有明で開かれた東レ・パンパシフィックオープン予選に出場していた大坂なおみはすごい才能があるとJTAに報告した。JTAは大坂なおみに援助を提案した。"
Next, I will change the Japanese to English."13年9月に(September 2013),有明(Ariake Coliseum),で開かれた(Held),東レ・パンパシフィックで、予選(Toray Pan Pacific Open Qualifying)に出場していた(Participation)大坂に(Naomi Osaka)JTAが(JTA)手を差し伸べた(Propose support)。今大会で(2016 Australian Open)大坂(Naomi Osaka)に同行する(Accompany)吉川真司(Shinji Yoshikawa)代表コーチ(Japan Fed Cup team coach)が「すごい才能」(Awesome talent)と報告(report)" → 2016 Australian Open Naomi Accompany Shinji Yoshikawa Japan Fed Cup team coach. September 2013 Ariake Coliseum Held Toray Pan Pacific Open Qualifying participation Naomi Awesome talent Shinji Yoshikawa report JTA. JTA Naomi Propose support.
Can you read the meaning? Shinji Yoshikawa Japan Fed Cup team coach saw her play for the first time at Toray Open held in Japan. He reported her talent to JTA. She did not play in Japan and did not register, so she did not recognize her existence until 2013. Then the JTA invited her. So this place is necessary for Japan national team.--Ricecenter (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
There's one thing I don't understand. Why do you talk about the 2016 Australian Open when the article says 2013 Pan Pacific Open qualifying? Otherwise, I think I understand. She was registered with the ITF as Japanese, which she could be as she was born in Japan. She did not need to be registered with the JTA if she did not want to play on the national team. She was "offered assistance" by the JTA when she competed in Tokyo in 2013 (although it does not say what kind of assistance). Shinji Yoshikawa, the Fed Cup team coach, reported after that tournament that she had "awesome talent". She then joined the JTA, and competed for Japan for the first time in the 2017 Fed Cup. Is that correct? Scolaire (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
That is because this is an article of the Australian Open 2016. There are no records or articles she registered with JTA. So I think that it was not until 2017. Even if she previously registered, As written in 2016 Nikkan Sports like this. 日本には秘策もある。２月の女子国別対抗戦フェド杯アジアオセアニアゾーンで１位になれば、４月に世界グループ２部への入れ替え戦がある。その代表に大坂を選出することも視野に入れる。フェド杯は代表になると、次に別の国の代表になるのは困難。大坂は今大会、最も活躍した日本女子で世界ランクも４番目。代表は４人のため、障害はない。米国はトップ１００に１１人が名を連ねる。１００位以下の大坂を代表に選ぶには、それなりの理由が必要となる, But until 2017 Fed Cup she was easy to change. So JTA wanted her to be a Japanese delegate soon.--Ricecenter (talk) 06:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Naomi has always represented Japan as a professional. Even for her first ITF tournament in 2011, she was registered with the JTA. See here. It makes sense that she was already registered with the JTA a year earlier in 2010 because that's when her older sister Mari played her first ITF tournament (see here). I think Ricecenter's confusion is that she did not play Fed Cup until recently. However, you do not need to play Fed Cup to have a national affiliation. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

But there can be a difference depending on a country's tennis rules. Yes, she was registered with the ITF as playing for Japan in 2011 as you have sourced it, but that doesn't mean she had to be registered with the JTA back then. I saw a bunch of sources when she was 16 (so 2014) that said the USTA wanted her to join them, but she told them they were too late and that she was joining the JTA. I think it very likely that 2014 was the year she joined the JTA, though they had been supporting her with coaching (not money) even earlier than that. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, whatever way we interpret it will be original research, so I'm going to stick to the fact that Shinji Yoshikawa saw her in action in 2013 and reported her talent to the JTA, and then jump ahead to her first appearance for Japan in 2017. If we ever do find a reliable source that gives the date of her registration, it can go in then. Scolaire (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
In common rumors, She is troubled with activity funds, her first asked for USTA but refused. So then she was accepted as she asked JTA. I think From the Nikkan Sports of 2016, that it is just before 2013 Toray Pan Pacific Open. So JTA recognized her existence, JTA dispatched a national team coach and inspected. JTA accepted support request. Looking at her activity history, Her debut match is near Jamaica from Florida. She has been playing games in the USA since then. And she suddenly goes to Tokyo from Quebec City in 2013. And North American continues. From April 2014, Japanese games increase. So I think that there was a chance for her base to increase to Japan in the meantime. I think that the Nikkan Sports of 2016 proves the event.--Ricecenter (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
As I say, we can look at all the news stories etc. and guess what the situation was, but that is original research, so we cannot use it in the article. I have added the stuff about Shinji Yoshikawa seeing her and reporting to the JTA, and changed the paragraph that said her father registered her with the JTA at the start of her career. That is the best we can do for now. Thank you for your contributions, and for having the patience to explain the things we were not able to understand. Scolaire (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Per this source, she had not joined the JTA by July 29, 2014. Perhaps there are more that can narrow it down. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Nikkan Sports of 2016 articles. However, registration was modified according to IPIN. Other changes are, There is a source of New York University, I edited it, However, probably FACEBOOK, who is considered to be him, It is City College of New York. Since there is a high possibility of error, I thought about deleting, I will use the source of college student in New York. Her first tennis club was not Harold Solomon Institute. Her first tennis club was the ISP Academy, Naomi Osaka 2013. Strings is part of the tennis racket and Roger Federer is also edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricecenter (talk • contribs) 05:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Very clever! Engage in a long discussion about two important matters, and then dump the rest of your rubbish back in the article exactly the way it was. There are multiple sources for NYU and none for City College except a Facebook page with the name Leonard Francois, which could have been created by anybody. I have read that puntodebreak.com article and watched that YouTube video several times, and I cannot see or hear "ISP Academy". Can you quote the exact sentence in each, please? And strings are not necessary in an encyclopaedia article. The fact that there are strings in the Federer article doesn't mean there have to be strings here. The rest of your edit is trivia: "When she was a lickle girl she wrote 'I want to be like Serena'" and so on. You have been reverted twice. A number of us have taken the trouble to discuss your edits with you. Please don't continue to add the same badly-written, unencyclopaedic content back. It is disruptive. Scolaire (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand your idea. Where you think the problem is, It also removes places you think are good. First of all, please return to where you believe there is no problem. It is because there is no legitimate need to delete. Let's discuss it later.--Ricecenter (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I have returned it to where I believe there is no problem – the article as it was, with the addition of the things we discussed and agreed. Each of your three edits has added a mass of content in different places. All of it is confusing, trivial, inaccurate or all three. The first time, I went through it line by line, kept what I thought was good, changed what I thought was wrong, improved the English, improved the formatting, added extra details and added extra citations. It took me over two hours to do it. I'm not going to do it again. You are not competent enough in English to make large changes to an article. If there are ten things that you want to add or change, state them here and number them 1 to 10. Let's start with (1) Her first tennis club was the ISP Academy. You say that that is stated in a puntodebreak.com article and a YouTube video. I asked you to quote the exact sentence in each, and you have not done so. Over to you. Scolaire (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Regarding Naomi Osaka 2013, I will transcribe Japanese subtitles. 4 seconds, ”なおみ” 15歳！注目の新人です！”.10 seconds, ”初めまして。テニス選手の大坂なおみ、15歳です”. 16 seconds, ”南フロリダ在住で今はISPアカデミーで”. 19 seconds, ”パトリックコーチのもと練習しています”. 22 seconds, ”大阪生まれで小さい時に米国に引っ越しました”. 26 seconds, ”テニスは3歳の時に始めました”. 30 seconds, ”テニスが好きな理由は”. 31 seconds, ”大会に出場して色々な選手と試合が出来るのと”. 34 seconds, ”特に強い選手と戦えるからです”. 2 minutes 6 seconds, ”自分の好きなショットは”. 2 minutes 7 seconds, ”フォアハンドとサーブです”. 2 minutes 9 seconds, ”何故なら好きな時にポイントを終わらせることが出来るからです”. The ISP Academy is probably 17 to 19 seconds.
Regarding equipment, I can not play tennis without Strings. I do not insist that editing is necessary, I have heard that it is necessary to delete it.
Regarding the university, Your saying is correct. So I edited New York University in the past. But, from her Twitter this video is herself. It is surely the channel of the mother's tamaki from this upload content and address. There is "New 'Selfish love' trailer: Bennchoumy" in the playlist of Liberty NY. Naomi sisters also appeared in this video. It can be said that the relevance between leonard.francois and Liberty NY is high. Such posts of this account is highly relevant to Naomi, Residence Pembroke Pines, Birthplace Port -au-Prince, Profile photo, On the timeline, In 1986, Tilden High School graduate "the early wave of foreigners coming to Sapporo around 1990, Tamaki met a handsome college student from New York" is no problem in time series. I can not think of another person because the matching rate is too high like this. Also, in general, if the City College of New York is ranked lower than New York University, the possibility of spoofing is low. But it is certain that there is no Identifying reliable sources. So I think that the correct way of writing is good in both universities like 'college student in New York'. Ricecenter (talk)
Wow, The person who wrote the subtitles has a good ear! Even knowing what the subtitles say, she seems to be saying "I train in South Florida with arse academy" ;-) The trouble is, we have that video from 2013, this, from 2014, which says "her coach is Harold Solomon; before working with Solomon, her father was her coach", and this, from 2016, which has Solomon before Tauma, and Tauma still coaching her at the 2016 Australian Open. We're trying to put a chronology on things when the chronology isn't clear. Also, is a tennis academy the same thing as a club? I suggest we edit the Early years section to say, "She trained with Patrick Tauma at the ISP Academy,[1] and with Harold Solomon at the Florida Tennis SBT Academy in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[2]" Then we don't have to worry about chronology. I would leave out the Proworld Academy altogether because it doesn't feature in the news coverage; there's only a mention of her name on the Academy website.
You have done a lot of great detective work on the Facebook/Twitter/YouTube sites but unfortunately, as you say, they don't count as reliable sources, and there is a source – which you added – that does say NYU. I would be willing to change it to "went to college in New York", and change the ref to the New York Times which, you might argue, is a more reliable source, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone changed it back to NYU.
If you do not insist that including strings is necessary, then let's not include strings, and there will be no problem. Scolaire (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Patrick Tauma (24 August 2013). Naomi Osaka Tennis Biography (YouTube video). Event occurs at 16 seconds. Retrieved 15 October 2018.
  2. ^ Watch: 16-year-old standout Naomi Osaka hits a massive forehand（Sports Illustrated July 31, 2014）
I think the tennis academy and the tennis club are the same. You seem to be confusing the time series, because the reporter who writes this article is mistaken. Originally she was first known for 2014, Harold coach was said to be her first coach. But since this video was discovered later, contradiction has arisen. She studied at Patrick Tauma at the ISP Academy in 2013. Later, she learned from Harold Solomon at SBT Academy in 2014. I think that is correct. Regarding ProWorld Tennis Academy, From this and this and this information I guess that she belonged to ProWorld Tennis Academy by Oct 28, 2015 to Oct 12, 2016.--Ricecenter (talk) 10:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I am not confusing anything. You are confusing writing an encyclopaedia article with playing detective. There is confusion in the sources. There is no reliable, secondary source that says exactly when she was coached by one person or another, or exactly when she attended one academy or another. Wikipedia does not allow original research. So, we can say that she belonged to ISP and SBT in her early years, but we can't say more than that. Of the three links you gave for ProWorld, two are to the academy's own site, and the other is to a brief fact sheet on the JTA site. If it doesn't even make it into a news story, then it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia article. Scolaire (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I just made it so that I can understand official information and period of enrollment. I did not think to judge that you do not need to edit. If you need external information this and this and so on. (If you can not see it, please enter it directly and search. Perhaps it may be seen. "Naomi Osaka: The Tennis Star Who Was Overlooked by Everyone") --Ricecenter (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The first link only says "with plenty of top talent coming across its courts including...Naomi Osaka". That doesn't tell us anything. The second one is subscription only. If you have a subscription, can you quote the sentence, please? Otherwise we can't use it. Scolaire (talk) 13:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Strangely, when I tried Google again today I got the full article. I have added ProWorld to the section. Scolaire (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I do not know what you are having a problem with. If we can prove that she has a history belonging to the ProWorld Tennis Academy, we should be able to edit it. Cava’s academy, named the ProWorld Tennis Academy, Over the past five years it has blossomed, with plenty of top talent coming across its courts including Adrian Mannarino, Naomi Osaka From this information, I can see that she belonged to the ProWorld Tennis Academy during the past five years since March 22, 2017. I wrote this, As you step on the link you can only read halfway. Troublesome but please search Google with this phrase "Naomi Osaka: The Tennis Star Who Was Overlooked by Everyone". It says "They later played at Harold Solomon Tennis Academy and then the ProWorld Tennis Academy in Delray Beach." --Ricecenter (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry. It seems that it has already been changed. There is no news to teach her Academy's period of enrollment, so it is OK. Since the content of the discussion is over, I will change the part that was said to be no problem. However, I could not translate this part ”Alden Terrace Primary school until the third grade and I want to be like her” well, Which do you say good or bad? --Ricecenter (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I have deleted the text because it was a copyright violation. I didn't want the whole thing, only the one sentence.
Please do not add anything back to the article. I didn't say it was no problem, I said everything I reverted was a problem. We shouldn't say she attended the school until third grade, just that she attended the school. It is the same as the tennis academies. "I want to be like her" is a trivial fact. It doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia article. The other things you added are the same. You do not have good enough English to edit the article, even if what you said was good. And the things that you keep trying to add back were not good. So please, just leave the article alone. Scolaire (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I am not good at English, so discussion is a problem, but editing is different. I have the right to edit, You and others have the right to modify, delete or discuss. This is an argument that you do after you delete my edits So I can not refute it if you do not have specific objections. You say that I am editing though you do not form consensus, that you have not refuted quickly. Please state all the objections before the discussion is over. Please explain to me specifically what is the problem with This edit. --Ricecenter (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I keep telling you what is wrong with your edits, and you keep acting as though you haven't read it. Then you say "there was no problem with these edits", and you put them back. For instance, I said, "strings are not necessary in an encyclopaedia article." You said, "I do not insist that editing is necessary, I have heard that it is necessary to delete it." I said, "If you do not insist that including strings is necessary, then let's not include strings, and there will be no problem." You did not reply. I thought the discussion was resolved. Then you put the strings back! I asked you eight days ago to make a list here on the talk page of everything you wanted to add or change. You only stated three things. I would have told you (again) my objection to the other things but you didn't list them. Then you say, "Since the content of the discussion is over, I will change the part that was said to be no problem." I had already said here, "the rest of your edit is trivia." There was never a part that was said to be no problem. If you can't understand English well enough to have a proper discussion, then you shouldn't be editing English Wikipedia. Why do you want to edit an article you can't read?
Everything in that edit is trivia. Everything. None of it belongs in an encyclopaedia article. The onus is on the person adding the content to get a consensus for the edit. You do not have a consensus to keep adding that content. Repeatedly adding the same content without consensus is edit-warring, so please stop adding it. Scolaire (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
You are also modifying and deleting edits other than me. That does not matter whether the editor is not good at English. You should respond appropriately if its editing is bad, and you have to admit it if editing is ok. So it does not matter if I am not good at English. I am not good at English, so I admit that it is difficult to argue. But if there is no discussion with you, my editing will not be a problem in particular. Even though I am better at English than I am, there are many useless editors. But they also have editorial rights.
About Strings, Apparently the Japanese translation seems to have been wrong. I read that you acknowledged it. For example, Looking at Sports equipment there is "but it is essential to complete the sport", including not only racket but also "Footwear". Even if you look at the Tennis equipment, it is mentioned about the Strings and it is written in more detail as a reference. Equipment and Strings are highly relevant, and it will be established only after two sets. Rackets without Strings can not be used as equipment. There is a lack of explanation in either case. I will accept the claim if you can play without Strings.
I finally understood the translation about other parts, so I will explain. There is 出身校(Alma mater) New York Alden Terrace小(elementary) - Florida Broward Virtual中(Middle school) - Florida Broward Virtual高(high school)卒(graduate), Please tell me why you should not write Middle school.
"Osaka starts tennis with the influence of his father who saw Venus and Serena Williams who won the 1999 French Open Women's Doubles" is writing the opportunity to start tennis. It is not only in tennis but also in many articles. But I am not good at English, I will welcome you if you can successfully connect with "Osaka practiced at Utsubo Tennis Center in Japan".
"Her agent, Daniel Balog of Octagon, says Osaka presents a unique opportunity to market the sport to crossover markets" This can prove that I was under the management of Daniel Balog of Octagon in 2016. at least, Even if I do not know from what time, I agree if it is the same editing as the tennis club. --Ricecenter (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
When somebody disagrees with my edit of mine, I have to get consensus for it on the talk page. When I did this edit, and somebody reverted it, I did not try to put it back. If I did, that would have been edit-warring. I was able to put it back after a month, when there had been a long discussion, and 15 people had agreed with me, so I had consensus. When nobody has a problem with one of my edits, I don't have to get a consensus on the talk page. For you, it is exactly the same. It makes no difference that you can point to a website that says something. If somebody disagrees with adding it, you have to get a consensus on the talk page. Putting it back without consensus is edit-warring. Your edits have been reverted four times. There has been a long discussion here on the talk page. Nobody has agreed with your edits. I say that everything you want to add is trivia. What you must do is to gain a consensus that those things belong in the article. Otherwise you must stop. Scolaire (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I understood your argument. But I can not agree with that. You say I do not agree with my editing, But you are opposed to only one person. Actually, the boundary is ambiguous whether it is trivia or not, there are 100 kinds of 100 editors. The strings were not changed from April 9, 2018 to October 10 2018. During that period, many editors acknowledged it. As soon as I returned, You can not tell me that your editing is more authorized than I am. I will return so. Middle school changed from April 5, 2018 to September 5 2018. However, it was anonymous user who changed it, Currently that person does not have edit right, so it can not be said that there are many people opposite. Other than that, These were not mentioned at the beginning when you repaired my edits. I predict your main problem was Boca Raton, University, Tennis Association, Tennis Club. If I do not have the current problem in this editing, I do not think you strongly oppose it. We solved the main problem, I think that the remainder is not a big problem either way. These edits are not judged by many people as you immediately delete the edits. There are only us participating in this discussion, I will propose that because the end of the discussion can not be seen as it is. let's leave it to editing, even if someone else does not participate. It should fit in shape after a long time. So at the end I will edit these. You can change what I approved, but You will not delete it. I will not change if people other than you correct or delete. Then let's make it to an end. Actually I can not do more editing I want to do, I am tired. I think that it is the same with you. So let's finish with this. --Ricecenter (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
If you edit to put back any of those things, I will revert you immediately. You do not have consensus to put them back. There was a discussion and nobody agreed with you. What you must do is to gain a consensus that those things belong in the article. Otherwise you must stop. Scolaire (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I have done so far in accordance with your discussion. But now you are pressing the recognition that you are right and I am wrong. Currently this page is a long discussion state. People other than us are neutral, they do not agree with your editing. Perhaps they will have not changed anything on the it page even if I am discussing the it situation with your edit back. Please prove that your edits are getting consensus. --Ricecenter (talk) 07:56, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
No. The onus is on the person making the changes to get a consensus for them. You are right about the strings. They were there for months. I will add them back. The word "middle" is already in the article. If you edit to put anything else back, I will revert you. Scolaire (talk) 08:42, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I did not notice that Middle school had already been edited. Also thank you for admitting that no one agrees with the string. My question is, do you consider "Sarebenka started playing tennis by chance" as trivia too? Also the contract with her IMG is good and the Octagon is the reason for trivia? However, since there is no agreement or no opposition in other places, it is difficult to conclude the discussion. Please give me someone 's favor or disagree. --Ricecenter (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Sportsfan77777(talk) for opinion the opportunity to start tennis . The rest is only management. --Ricecenter (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, thank you Sportsfan77777 for your excellent edits. Good luck with the Good Article nomination. Scolaire (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 5 years ago37 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Naomi Osaka/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 20:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Shall review this article. MWright96 (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, MWright96! I just updated the article to reflect this year's results, so it should be ready to look at. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Lede

Early life and background

2011–15: WTA Tour match win at age 16, top 150

2016: First WTA final, Newcomer of the Year, top 50

2017: Slight regression, two top 10 victories

2018: US Open champion, Indian Wells title, world No. 4

Hopman Cup

Playing style

Coaches

  • "Following her tough loss at the 2016 US Open," - heavy to avoid editoralizing
    • Changed to "Following her loss at the 2016 US Open where she could not convert a 5–1 lead in the third set"
  • Wikilink Japan Tennis Association

Endorsements

Personal life

References

Good work on the article. There is nothing that is too major to be addressed. MWright96 (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

MWright96, thanks for the review! I've addressed all of the comments above, and pretty much agreed with everything. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Sportsfan77777: Okay then. Am now able to promote the article to GA class. MWright96 (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Removing content from the lead

Latest comment: 5 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

Sennen goroshi has removed the same sentence from the lead four times. The sentence is, "Osaka is known for her multi-ethnic background and her shy, candid personality." His/her most recent edit summary is my consensus is based on MOS:LEAD. But MOS:LEAD says that the lead should serve as "a summary of its most important contents". The Personal life section talks about only two things: her multi-ethnic background and her shy, candid personality. Therefore it belongs in the lead. It was in the lead when the article was given Good Article status, and it shouldn't be removed just because one user believes it is somehow disrespectful to use the word "shy" in the lead of a biographical article. Scolaire (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it being in the lead, but I'd kinda like to hear from editor Goroshi to see what their legitimate issues are with the sentence. To my understanding and the sources I see, her multi-ethnicity is a huge part of her notability. Her shyness and candidness are important but notable to a lesser degree, and these particular personality traits may disappear with time and comfort with the press. If/when they do the lead may have to be adjusted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Her ethnic background is mentioned with specific details in the second paragraph of the lede, I see no benefit in mentioning it again in the lede. The fact that she is shy is hardly encyclopedic and certainly not relevant for the lede - the lede should summarize the most important aspects of the article, her shyness is not that important. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I think maybe you haven't read that much about her or watched many of her interviews. She is candid (and often very funny), and completely different from the prepared-speech type delivery that most professional tennis players have; and she frequently stresses – as do her team members and tennis reporters – how shy she is. It is a defining characteristic and, as such, it belongs in the lead. The lead of the Nick Kyrgios article has a sentence about his negative qualities. You can't just say "'unsportsmanlike' is suitable for the lead but 'shy' isn't." Scolaire (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
"It is a defining characteristic" - no. She is defined by her performance as a tennis player, not by some tabloid level crap on how she is shy. The character of Nick Kyrgios is relevant for the lede of his article because he has received widespread criticism, and the lede deals with this criticism, not his attitude. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 22:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
The lead doesn't necessarily deal with shyness or criticism. It deals with the most important aspects of a person. Osaka's notability has been built for the last two years by her tennis playing and her multi-cultural background. Those are HUGE factors in why she is notable. For a tennis player, she is "unusually" shy and candid. Whether those last two items are enough for the lead is up for debate. If someone asks me who Naomi Osaka is, I would probably tell them she is a Japanese-American (with Haitian ancestry), two-time major tennis champion, who is refreshingly shy in her interviews. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree that her tennis performances and background are important. Both are mentioned way before the contentious content. There is certainly no need to cover her background twice in the lede - that seems as if it was added by someone who didn't actually bother to read and lede and just added a random statement. Her shyness isn't why she is famous - that's just a very minor detail in someone's life who has very major details. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you have said that three times now (five times if you count edit summaries). Repeating it endlessly isn't going to alter the fact that we disagree, i.e. you have no consensus to remove the content. Scolaire (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Consensus isn't a vote, and perhaps you need to modify your tone a little. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I apologise for my tone. The fact remains that you have come to the talk page to find a consensus for your edit and failed. It has nothing to do with voting. It's simply that nobody has supported your edit. Doing the same edit while you are failing to get a consensus for it on the talk page is edit-warring. Please don't do it again. Scolaire (talk) 11:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The content was added by Sportsfan77777 while preparing this article for Good Article status. I wonder whether he would have any comment. Scolaire (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I didn't come to this talk page to gain consensus, the consensus already exists due to wikipedia policies. I came here because you were whining here and I thought it polite to respond. MOS and undue weight trump any minor voting you might indulge in on this talk page. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Well that's a heck of a thing to say at an encyclopedia where consensus-building is crucial. Personally, I feel that the only bit required in the lead is her multi-ethnic background. Serve speed and demeanor should probably stay in the personal sections of prose. However, this article was vetted as a "good" article quite recently, and no one had a problem with policy and guidelines with any of the sentence in question. Consensus is that there was nothing wrong with that sentence. Is it the best choice to have it all in the lead, imho no. But this looks to be a simple content dispute. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Name – hiragana only, or kanji as well?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article currently has her name in Japanese as 大坂なおみ, which is quite probably correct. I just noticed that her name appears on the scoreboards at the China Open as 大阪直美, though, with her given name Naomi being represented by the commonly used kanji 直美. Is it known whether Osaka uses the kanji version of her given name herself? Should it be included in the article? Kokoshneta (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Accessibility

Latest comment: 4 years ago27 comments4 people in discussion

Some users keep on removing accessibility features which are required sitewide such as table captions and abuse of the small HTML tag. Please revert yourself for the benefit of our blind readers and to conform with mandatory parts of the Manual of Style. @Sportsfan77777 and Fyunck(click): ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: It's this again. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
They are not required and you are failing to realize those charts have a section all their own. It says "it plays the role of a table heading, and is recommended as a best practice." That far from must, especially when it has a section all its own with a full heading. A second caption is overkill in this case. When you have a section titled "Grand Slam singles performance timeline" and the only thing in the section is the "Grand Slam singles performance timeline" it is silly and non-productive to throw in another caption calling the chart the "Grand Slam singles performance timeline." And you also introduced other anti-accessibility problems such as headers mid-table that we had to remove. When these charts'sections were created we had the accessibility police right there beside us helping with the design, and to make them uniform, so I'm not too worried about the state of the charts and performance sections. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), They are required: "All data tables need a table caption that succinctly describes what the table is about". Why do you think some are exempt when the Manual of Style explicitly says that they all need a data table? What "headers" are you talking about? I didn't add any headers in a table? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Nope. You added "!" in the middle of the table which is an accessibility problem with screen readers. We were told this over and over by screen reader experts. And a second header saying the same thing is silly. It would be like doubling up on the AJ Foyt record charts. Each has it's own section so nothing else is required. If you have a table that appears in the middle of prose then it's good practice to include a table header for screen readers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Stating we are "making the site hostile to the blind" is not WP:CIVIL. We've been using the same general table format for years. I read the discussion on this topic. You didn't point out that this "change" happened only a few months ago. Our project was not notified or invited to participate in that discussion even though we are affected, and I imagine it is the same for many other relevant projects. Beyond that, the table captions you added don't describe what's in the table. If the tables had captions, they would just be the section headers. But that doesn't even matter because it was discussed that table captions aren't required when they duplicate the section header, as Fyunck pointed out. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Sportsfan77777, The change impacted the entire site and everyone was invited to comment via RfC. If the problem is that the table captions could be better, then you should improve them, not remove them. Please revert yourself for the purposes of accessibility and improve the article if you think you can. Note that table captions are required for all data tables. Where are you getting this language that there are exceptions? Is it something you are making up? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), That is not a header. Headers are made in MediaWiki with equal signs (e.g. the header that reads "Accessibility" at the beginning of this conversation has two equal signs, making it an H2 header). Table captions are required for al data tables. Please read MOS:TABLECAPTION. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
No matter how many times you spew that won't make it true. And using "!" has been proven to cause issues with accessibility. Is refraining the use of "!" required, no. That is left for Wikipedia policy issues. But it is best we don't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), The thing that makes it true is the RfC that required it. Please see MOS:TABLECAPTION and MOS:DTAB: "Data tables should always include a caption". This is one of those examples, so please revert yourself per our Manual of Style and best practices for accessibility. Please also explain what you mean about proven issues with column and row scopes (not headers, as they were never included in any tables). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), do you have any blind friends who use screen readers? If so, I suggest you have a talk with them. Required? Who knows, but without headers, the tables are unusable by some readers. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Actually when we designed the charts, we had sight challenged editors help us out. Their screen readers worked perfectly with them. The only issue was using "!" in rows mid table, so we corrected that. We are always balancing size, width, accessibility, presentation, etc. Flexibility is always needed in articles. When you have a a data section that is about one thing... "George Washington's dentist visits" and it's right there in bold as the section header, having a second "George Washington's dentist visits" is just silly. The screen reader would have just read that information. Just like we do with George Washington's rank history, or heavily vetted featured articles like Milos Raonic, the mandatory stuff doesn't fly. If it's in the middle of prose with no new section header, then it makes some sense. Otherwise I'm not convinced at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), Screen readers also use these for navigation to quickly get to parts of a page. Please always include captions on data tables per the accessibility guidelines and the recent RfC affirming that all data tables need captions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Situational for all guidelines. This situation would be redundant and messy, and as I see from almost all other articles, not used. Accessibility itself says "it is best treated with common sense." I can see a firestorm of protest if this is "demanded" of every wikiproject no matter the circumstance without massive centralized discussion among every project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), It is required of all data tables, as you have seen multiple times now. Sourcing is also required and there are hundreds of thousands or millions of unsourced statements here as well. There is nothing redundant about them and if you are worried about it being "messy", then you can use {{sronly}}. It seems like you are being intransigent about defying accessibility guidelines based on your personal aesthetics which is incredibly poor form but if you have some other explanation for why you are removing accessibility features and fighting about it, I'm open to why you are doing this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Actually you seem to be putting this forth as policy. It is not. It is not required. As far as being intransigent it's funny but I was thinking the same about you. Now... for the first time, instead of using a battering ram, you have mentioned something that might work, and that is {{sronly}}. While it is not required, at least if it is not visible above the tables, it would not be a detriment to this encyclopedia. I have brought it up at Tennis Project to double check that everyone approves of the hidden "sronly" table parameter for all our tables. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), I never said that it's a policy, as I stated it's a guideline that is required of all data tables. There is nothing detrimental to the encyclopedia about making it more accessible to the blind but there is something detrimental about making it less accessible to the blind. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
And as I said from how it's written, it is not required. Common sense must prevail in guidelines. They give us general ways to do things but they don't always work. Wikipedia policies are required. But we'll see if the project has any issues with your last suggestion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), What is "common sense" about making this site less accessible? I have asked you this repeatedly and this is one of several questions in this thread that you have just ignored. It's increasingly difficult to communicate with you or assume that you are having this discussion in good faith. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I have already said it is not common sense to double-up the same info basically twice in a row. It is detrimental to readers and page size. I'm beginning to feel you have some sort of a chip on your shoulder or enjoy being disruptive. Please stop with that. You made a suggestion about hiding the doubling-up (which was very helpful) and I took it to Tennis Project as doable. We'll see what they say before we add it to the article. We obviously will never agree on what is mandatory at Wikipedia so I won't even try with that anymore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), And you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naomi_Osaka&type=revision&diff=978464270&oldid=978462830 keep on removing table semantics. I thought we discussed this: why are you removing accessibility features again? Have you read Help:Table#Scope? You claimed that there was some problem with them but never elaborated what that was and you also contradict our documentation. I'm also confused as to why editors here keep on adding in irrelevant and unexplained color changes when it directly contradicts MOS:COLOR. As you know, table captions are required, so I am very confused as to why you removed them once your complaints about how they are aesthetically unpleasing were addressed. Now you're concerned about the strain on the Wikimedia servers for 81 more bytes of text that doesn't render on the page? That would be laughable if it weren't active hostile to blind users. Please explain yourself. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
We are discussing this in several locations right now... including Tennis Project. Major changes to our tables always require discussion before or if they get changed. That is how it's always been. I don't see where there is a problem with Mos:color. Color is not the only thing being used to convey the info, the number is. Color is often an extra way to convey info for those not sight challenged. It's not some devious plot to hide things from the sight-challenged. And you are a broken record with your "required" baloney. Even the administrator you called over here wouldn't go that far. It is good practice to have captions because it adds "convenience" but common sense must also be weighed. There are like no articles on wikipedia that are as rigid as you seem to want, and you don't practice what you preach when you look at all the articles you edit that have tables you never touch. Just take a deep breath and we'll see where the discussions lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I will also clarify and correct what we were told about using "!" mid table. "!" cannot be used alone for rows per accessibility and html guidelines. Two options can work. Our best option we were told was to replace ! with |, add background color for the row to #EFEFEF... etc. This is the most common way we do it per accessibility advice. If it was an individual cell we were told we could have set each individual cell that has ! to have: scope="row". 1st method is used when the entire row has a grey background. 2nd method is used when the ! is applied to some individual cells in a row. We were also told that scope="col" is redundant if the table is class="wikitable". So you can use "!" with scope but it's not required and there is no reason to change things, plus it is not good practice to mix the usage types in a table. I hope that helps clarify things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), "Major changes to our tables always require discussion before or if they get changed": there was a sitewide RfC! WP:LOCALCONSENSUS doesn't override sitewide guidelines and policies. Why do you keep on fighting me on this? I have asked you multiple times now: where are you getting ""!" cannot be used alone for rows per accessibility and html guidelines" as the guidelines say the exact opposite. Why shouldn't there be a row scope? Please give me an actual answer for this instead of "we were told..." with no indication who said this, why, when, or where. If someone told you this, who was it and where was it written? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Major changes to our tables always require discussion before or if they get changed... period. Policies are one thing and guidelines are quite another. I already answered about scope, and that it can be used with !, so if that's not good enough or you don't understand I don't know what to tell you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Fyunck(click), You can answer my question which is who is the mystery person who told you this and where is it documented. I've asked repeatedly and you feign ignorance of the question. All data tables require captions on Wikipedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
LOL...Are you still blathering about this? Find someone else to hound with your ridiculousness. I guess there's a reason you've been blocked 27 times (3 in the last few months). Move along, the train has left the station. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

New RfC on the lead opening sentence

Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

Should the lead opening sentence state

  1. "Naomi Osaka is a Japanese professional tennis player.", or
  2. "Naomi Osaka is a professional tennis player who represents Japan."

The previous RfC on this topic back in 2018 chose the second option, but a lot has changed since then. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Background

Naomi Osaka was born in Japan to a Haitian father and a Japanese mother. She has lived and trained in the United States since she was three years old. She used to have dual citizenship in Japan (where she was born) and the United States (because her father acquired US citizenship at some point). Last year, she gave up her US citizenship in accordance with Japan's Nationality Act, which requires dual citizens to choose a nationality by the age of 22.

Also, tennis players are required to register with a national organization, and Osaka has always played under the Japanese flag (for the Japan Tennis Association). She has never represented the United States in tennis. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Reasons for Option 1

  • Simply put, Osaka was born in Japan. She represents Japan in tennis. She has a Japanese parent. And she is a Japanese citizen. So logically, Naomi Osaka is a Japanese professional tennis player. Nearly every other tennis biography is written this way. Writing anything else would make it sound like she's not really Japanese, which would be misleading. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • The article has changed a lot since the last RfC. While it's currently a good article, it was still a start-class article at the time of the last RfC. Back then, the lead didn't mention her Haitian background or the fact that she grew up in the United States at all. The entire lead was just just three sentences:
Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ, Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997) is a Japanese professional tennis player. On 11 June 2018, Osaka reached her best singles ranking of world No. 18. On 3 April 2017, she peaked at world No. 324 in the doubles rankings. (see here)
Now that the lead does mention her background and where she grew up, that's no longer a concern. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Per MOS:ETHNICITY, the opening paragraph should only mention her nationality and not her ethnicity or her past nationalities. We already give her ethnicity and background their due weight in the second paragraph. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Even though she has a complicated ethnicity and background, Osaka doesn't have a complicated nationality. She only has one nationality and has only ever represented in one country in sports. Both of those are Japan. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
  • After the last RfC, lots of editors (including myself) would keep the opening sentence as option 2 whenever it was changed. But since Osaka gave up her US citizenship in late 2019, there has only been one editor who insists on keeping that option. Meanwhile, lots of different editors (including myself) keep changing the lead sentence to option 1, only for that one editor to insist the old RfC still applies until there is another discussion. So here is that new discussion. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments

Name inaccuracy

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article currently states "The two girls were given their mother's maiden name in accordance with Japanese law that requires children with one foreign parent to take the last name of their Japanese parent in order to be included in their koseki, or family registry." - this is inaccurate. When a foreign man and a Japanese woman marry in Japan, the most typical choice is for the woman to take the husband's foreign family name and start a koseki of her own, and then their children are given the husband's family name, being shared with the mother. We are missing information here (for example, if her parents were not legally married in Japan), or if the husband chose to carry the wive's family name and be included in her family's koseki). --Ltsiros (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a citation that you can include to support what you are suggesting? It would be good to have an independent source so others can verify this practice. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead opening sentence

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Now that Osaka has given up her US citizenship, it is clear that she should be listed as a "Japanese tennis player". She was born in Japan, represents Japan, and has Japanese citizenship. We adequately represent her ethnic background and where she has lived later in the lead. Is anyone against calling her a "Japanese tennis player", and why? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm against it because it overly simplifies her complex nationality. She was raised in the United States, had citizenship there for most of her life and doesn't even consider herself a fluent speaker of Japanese. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 06:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not against it, would be accurate, not really about sugar coating an Encyclopedia entry. EliteArcher88 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
That ship sailed, it was changed to Japanese professional tennis player" in January 2020. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change all mentions of "Fed Cup" to "Billie Jean King Cup". 73.162.91.15 (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. it was called the Fed Cup when she won it. RudolfRed (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

How did Naomi Osaka acquire U.S. citizenship?

Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

My understanding is that her father, who is Haitian-born, became a naturalized U.S. citizen before she was born, and that she acquired U.S. citizenship at birth through her father. But this is not mentioned in the article, and I'm unable to find reliable sources for this. I think this is relevant information that should be added to the article if it can be sourced properly. laug (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that a few people tried and failed to find a source for this. I know I did. Google is your friend, but it's not omniscient. Scolaire (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
This was hard to find. She was automatically a naturalized US citizen by derivation of her naturalized father. See this article. Per naturalization laws A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a U.S. citizen when
  • 1) The child has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen by birth or through naturalization  Y
  • 2) The child is under 18 years of age  Y
  • 3) The child is a lawful permanent resident  Y
  • 4) The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent  Y
So it was automatic that Osaka became a US citizen... nothing had to be done and it's why she has dual citizenship. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): I don't know what V-Dare is – and I think I'd rather not know – but it is emphatically not a reliable source. Did you notice the word BLOG highlighted in bright orange at the top of the page? Did you notice the copyright New York Times picture/heading reproduced without permission? All credit to you for trying, but if is all that anybody can find on the web then the fact of her father's citizenship still isn't verifiable. Scolaire (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree about that source, but it's what first said it was automatic citizenship. The automatic citizenship I did not know about and it's why I lookd it up at the gov't website. Her father has been described as naturalized in several articles such as here at the African Globe. I didn't say it should necessarily go in the article, but assuming the sources are correct that her father naturalized and assuming the the US Gov article on citizenship is correct during the time he has been a citizen, then that's why she has American Citizenship. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure the African Globe would be a news outlet with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I'd like to see the fact stated in a high-quality source. Ideally, also, I'd like to see some details, e.g. what year (or even decade) did he acquire citizenship? why did he apply?, etc. I'm quite ready to believe that he was already a citizen when Naomi was born, but we can't put it in with what we've got, and we shouldn't be talking about it on the talk page if we're not intending to put it in. Scolaire (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Relatedly, the article doesn't address the quality of Osaka's parents' relationship. I'd suppose that, generalising from typical Haitian familial structures and from the fact that Osaka uses the name of a Japanese city as her surname, that they never married. Did they actually live together, rather than simply have an affair? Did they remain together throughout Osaka's childhood? Knowing more could afford the reader insight into Osaka's own personality and character. Firstorm (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Assuming she has ever been a US citizen thanks to his father, at the time of her application for a US passport, she would need to present evidence of US citizenship per https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/passports/need-passport/apply-in-person.html. Maybe she had never applied for a US passport to begin with, since it doesn't look like she has ever had to work at a place requiring Form I-9 employment authorization. All she has been doing is training and competing. If we can all agree on she has US citizenship, then there has been no legal evidence of her giving up her U.S. citizenship per the United States Department of the Treasury. See here The Olympic Charter Rule 41 by-law allows Olympians like her with dual citizenship or multiple citizenship to choose a country to represent. See here. Call this original research all you guys want. It's simple journalistic fact-checking. If she only has green card, her renunciation would also be published on the Federal Register. So enough of this crap of fake news reporters saying, "She's taken steps to give up her US citizenship to play for Japan." She hasn't done so from a legal sense. Nuance matters! Maybe her father got his US citizenship thru the following steps: (1) F visa since it was described in the first paragraph that "he was a college student in New York." (2) then political asylum, due to Haiti#Post-Duvalier_era_(1986–2004). Temporary protected status wouldn't allow him to apply for green card per https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-afm/afm38-external.pdf; (3) Asylee can apply for green card upon one year and subsequently US citizenship. That being said, Superman didn't do the asylum steps, so he is an illegal alien thru and thru. Supermann (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree. If she had really renounced U.S. citizenship she would be listed in the Federal Register records. Maybe if she wasn't residing in the U.S. full-time you could make a case for the idea that she relinquished citizenship overseas and simply wasn't returning, but the fact that she lives in the U.S. and is still a citizen in the eyes of the IRS makes it quite clear. All the press about her "relinquishing" or "renouncing" U.S. citizenship and "choosing" Japanese citizenship was poorly researched and really just providing public relations by proxy for Japan's single nationality principle and cover for the idea that Osaka was complying with it. YgFZAcpJUJ (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Residence

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Why does it say her residence is Beverly Hills, California, United States when she is Japanese and is a Japanese citizen with no US citizenship — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, you can live in another country without being a citizen there. She grew up in the US and lives in the US, but she's a citizen of Japan. Fyunck(click) (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Don't be naive. Please read "How did Naomi Osaka acquire U.S. citizenship?" from above. Supermann (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
The evidence points to her still being a U.S. citizen in spite of a lot of the bad reporting in the press when she turned 22. YgFZAcpJUJ (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This mental fragility needs to be addressed

Latest comment: 2 years ago24 comments9 people in discussion

I wasn't sure the best way to word it but I feel I've been pretty darned tame in mentioning her mental issues. When people hear or read about Naomi Osaka these days, certain things come to light at the very top. She plays for Japan, she has won four majors, she has has been outspoken on some activist issues, and she is mentally fragile right now. She quit because of news conferences. Then she's back. The she throws a tantrum on the court and is penalized. Then she says she has no idea when or if she's coming back and needs another hiatus. In the third paragraph of the lead, if we are going to mention a sportsmanship award that few people know about, her activism, her aggressive playing style, her serve speed, and her marketability, then we should absolutely mention an issue that everyone knows about and is talking about from here to China. This is a huge problem for her continuing tennis career. If someone has a better way to word it I'm all ears, but it's sourced in the 2021 section of prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

There are definitely better ways to phrase it, and I don’t believe it merits inclusion in the lead right now. It’s on people’s minds right now but we are WP:NOTNEWS and should avoid WP:RECENTISM. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
We have a HUGE disagreement then. This is now part of her persona. In fact it's likely one of the first things people think about when the name Naomi Osaka is mentioned. To leave it out of the lead is pov in my opinion. This is not the first time so it's not recent anymore... it's piling up and not something that can be ignored. And mentally fragile is far better than things I'm reading in the press. How much more sugar coated can we make it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I mean Djokovic just had a huge breakdown only a little over a month ago. Barty has missed more time for mental health reasons than Osaka. Borg straight up retired in the middle of his prime for similar reasons. We don't call any of them mentally fragile in the lead. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Even the length of her hiatus hasn't been that long. She only missed two and a half months thus far, and even if she doesn't play the rest of the year, Serena has been doing that for years. Barty is not playing the rest of the year either. That's the way tennis works. If you win a major but only play half the season, you still had a good year. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Maybe not every one of them came out in the press saying they had mental issues. We have things in her lead such as "On the court, Osaka has an aggressive playing style with a powerful serve". We have things like "one of the world's most marketable athletes, having been ranked eighth among all athletes in endorsement income." We have "Osaka has gained significant recognition as an activist, having showcased support for the Black Lives Matter movement." Most players don't have these things in their leads. There are a couple things she is now more notable for than almost everything else. She is a really good tennis player. She is black and from Japan... that's really unusual given their culture. She is having mental issues and in trying to deal with them has resigned from one major, skipped another, and now had an on court meltdown in another major to the extent of which she described herself as going on hiatus because she's confused about her tennis feelings. It seems like she's being a bit coddled here. If this is not lead-worthy how are those other items here? Like it or not this is a huge part of her persona now. It's also amazing there isn't a whole section on this in the main part of prose. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Truthfully, I came to the article to read how the article handled her decision to step away from tennis. I looked at the history and saw there was some dispute, so I'm glad someone has already started a discussion here. I think her behavior and claims of mental health issues warrants its own section. Her outsized celebrity compared to veteran successful players is in no doubt partly due to her ethnicity, but also because of her withdrawal from the French Open, which she attributed to her mental health. Then there's the press conference where she started crying and left halfway through after being asked a perfectly legitimate question. The meltdown during her loss to Fernandez isn't unprecedented, as she's acted this way in the past. Many top players have outbursts, but this should be taken holistically with the attention the media pays to her mental issues (example). Now she's hinting at retirement and stated she doesn't know when she's going to play again. That's significant. I think we should put a few sentences in the lead and include a section outlining her tumultuous relationship with the media, her mental health, and her decision to step back from tennis. Incerto501 (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I came to this article to find out more about this, it was the main reason her name was brought up in a podcast, and I couldn’t find mention if it anywhere but the talk page. Thesowismine (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

There's only so much one person can do folks. There is a neutrality pov tag for everyone to see that may linger for years until it's resolved. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I think a paragraph in the body would be good and proper since she has publicly discussed her problems with depression and other issues. Here is a good NPR link [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.117.88.196 (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the POV tag, as permitted by the instructions at Template:POV#When_to_remove, "discussion has become dormant", as it is now three months since any comment was made. There doesn't seem to be any consensus to include mention of the mental health issue in the lead anyway, per the discussion above, and particularly not to style it as "mentally fragile".  — Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I have added it back. Editors have removed a major aspect of her career because it is negative and that is not right. She is on record as having to deal with mental issues and that needs a place in the article because of her prominence in the sport. Until it is addressed the POV should remain because it is a fact that keeps being discussed in the press. No consensus? The last two posters agreed with me. It certainly doesn't need the words mentally fragile but she took part of the year off because of those mental issues. She broke WTA rules of interviewing because of those issues. She wants to be treated differently because of those issues. That needs to be in the article even if it's disclosed in the years in question. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Osaka's avoidance of her interview obligations and her hiatus from the sport are both mentioned in the article and the reason is given as mental health issues. There is more to mention, and I'd be in support of adding information to the body. If there's enough due material to justify a lead mention, I'll be all for it. Obviously, I continue to oppose "mental fragility". Firefangledfeathers 20:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
It's not going away. John McEnroe was interviewed about it just now. Osaka just announced she's deleting twitter and Instagram. I'm not sure is there's a singles article about her Australian Open exit that doesn't talk about her mental problems: Vogue Magazine, NBCPhilly, the BBC,... everyone. There's nothing under her personal life section. There's only a mention of her mental health problems in her 2021 section and there it gets buried when it's a huge pert of her persona. The lead talks of her income and marketability, her support for BLM, her sportsman award, her playing style... nothing about what's been going on since the 2021 Miami Open and 2021 French Open. The lead should encompass the most noteworthy aspects of her career. She plays professional tennis, has been No. 1, has won four majors, is a black player from Japan, and deals with mental issues that affect her tennis capabilities. That's who she is today and those are the highlights of a lead. I also think it could be expanded outside of 2021 section since it is still prevalent in 2022. Either it's own heading of "Mental Health issues" or a larger section under personal life. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
The lead talks about a lot of things that are given lengthy treatment in the body of the article. There's some pure tennis stuff that still needs to be added about this year so far, and I do think it should mention comments by Osaka and others about the state of her mental health. I wouldn't call the "mental issues" or "mental fragility", but there's plenty to summarize from RS coverage. I would not support a "Mental health issues" section. Most of the coverage I see relates her mental health to her career, and we can include the overlap in the existing sections. If there's coverage that's more about her personal life, I wouldn't oppose including it there. Firefangledfeathers 02:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Agree that it needs to be mentioned in the lead, but I also agree with the point that the body doesn't cover it in a way that would grant a lead mention. It's currently only talked about as a part of her career which essentially makes it seem trivial - a bump in the road. There are many articles by e.g. the NY Times, Time, etc. which focus solely on her mental health outspokenness so maybe this is something that could be considered. Coconutyou3 (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Then we need to figure out the best wording to use in the lead and body of this major aspect of her persona before the POV tag should be removed. I tried my hand at it today but it was not agreed to. That's fine but neither do I agree the tiny amount that's there now. It's as if she's being protected to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know when it was added, but there is now a sentence in the lead saying, "She played a limited schedule in 2021 to focus on her mental health." Is that sufficient? If not, can anybody produce an alternative wording? If so, can the tag be removed? I just saw it now and it looks ugly. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:D06A:50F1:4E93:632B (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts would be this. Her career hasn't been that long thus far so weight is a tough balance. I would argue that more people know about her struggles with mental issues and missed matches than they do about her political activism. Right now the lead says "She played a limited schedule in 2021 to focus on her mental health." "Osaka has gained significant recognition as an activist, having showcased support for the Black Lives Matter movement in conjunction with her matches. She was named one of the 2020 Sports Illustrated Sportspersons of the Year for her activism largely as part of her US Open championship run, and was also included on Time's annual list of the 100 most influential people in the world in both 2019 and 2020." Those two items are out of balance in the lead. I would add a bit more on her mental issues instead of removing her activism. When people talk about Osaka it comes in three flavors in this order: She is a really good tennis player, she has broken down multiple times for mental issues and is being treated for those issues, she is an activist for black life improvement. The lead fails in this respect. It should certainly be far and away about her tennis achievements. I would write: She has pulled out of press conferences and tournaments, and broken down on court in continuing struggles with mental health. I would remove the Sports Illustrated "for her activism largely as part of her US Open championship run" section. That would be a little more balance. But in the main body there should probably be a section on her struggles, or at least much more detail in her personal life section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Still has not been corrected in the lead or body. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): the purpose of the POV tag is not to be a permanent badge of shame on an article, but to draw attention to active talk page discussion. Over many months, this has not succeeded. You might consider an appeal to WP:NPOVN, or we could go to WP:DRN, or maybe start an RfC. We could also continue to do nothing, but if this discussion goes stale again, I plan to remove the tag per the instructions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
It's not a question of success. This isn't a race to some trophy at the end. The conditions have not been met and the article is still biased in it's treatment of Osaka. Fix that and remove the tag. It's as easy as that. Treat the subject matter fairly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I think it's a matter of success. You might be surprised to hear this, but I oppose the use of unsuccessful dispute resolution methods. You are advocating for a change to the article, and the WP:ONUS is on you to build consensus for it. How you go about it is up to you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
And that is a matter of opinion. Pretty much only you do not want a balanced approach to this issue. It is because of you I haven't fixed it. Others have mentioned in coming to this article that there is nothing about Osaka's mental issues. I'll attempt to correct it again tonight and remove the heading. I don't want that template up there any more than you do, and more editors in this thread agree with me than you. It's a question of the right wording and I was leaving that to others. Since "others" haven't stepped up, I'll do it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Choosing citizenship

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Now that Osaka is approaching her 22nd birthday there is a growing discussion, at least in the Asian media, of the Japanese law that requires dual citizens to choose a single country at age 22. This edit by GreenRunner0 (which was reverted by Sportsfan77777) cited this article in the Japan Times, which is certainly a reliable source for the fact that she could have to choose. The article heavily implies that almost no-one chooses and the law turns a blind eye, but this video by Asian Boss tells a different story. In a street survey with a very small sample we hear (at 3m 24s) that one young lady has a cousin that had to make the choice between Japanese and American, and another chose Japanese over Canadian citizenship but was distressed about losing part of her identity. So it is a real thing, and it has a real impact; in Osaka's case, it impacts many of her fans as well as herself and her family. As October 16 approaches, this story is going to get bigger. But we have reliable sources now, so there is no reason not to include the fact in the article now. Scolaire (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it probably should be included. Not that she must make a choice, but the fact that she "may" have a choice to make. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The Japan Times article says that some people choose to give up one of their citizenships because they are aware of the law, but the article also says that none of these people were forced to do so. It's not correct to say that the Japanese government will force her to choose because they have never done that. Beyond that, it's also not correct to say that the Japanese government may force her to choose because that is predicting the future (see WP:CRYSTALBALL). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Right. Some of the news sources around her "choosing citizenship" are confused. She still holds multiple nationality (Japan and US) and resides in the US. Japan can only give and take away Japanese nationality, not US nationality. To give up US nationality she would have to go through an official loss of nationality with the US. There would be evidence of that. For the average person, Japan's single nationality principle could mean that if they didn't officially renounce their US nationality with the US, Japan might revoke their Japanese nationality. But Naomi Osaka is not your average person and Japan wants her to have Japanese nationality to represent the country as an athlete, which means allowing her to hold both while just not acknowledging that she holds both. ---- SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I added a long footnote with a more detailed (and more accurate) explanation to account for these nuances. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naomi_Osaka/Archive_3&oldid=1227976019"