Talk:Debito Arudou

Anonymous Editors and the Neutrality Tag

An anon IP address turned up to criticize the term "self-publicized" in relation to Arudou's divorce, deletes it, and then decides to throw the baby out with the bathwater by disputing the neutrality of the entire article. I appreciate the input, but it would be more helpful if the anonymous user would outline where the article can be improved on the talk page. As it stands, a vague dispute about neutrality leaves us nothing to work with.

As an act of good-faith, let me explain my reasoning regarding the expression “self-publicized divorce,” and then hopefully we can all move on to other things. Another editor (Hontogaichiban) changed Arudou's official name from "Sugawara Arudoudebito" to "Arudou Debito" in the original paragraph of the naturalization section, while incorrectly leaving the other sections about the "Sugawara" rationale unchanged, requiring some kind of publicly verifiable re-write. So we have to ask the questions: Did Arudou change his legal name? Yes, he did. Is this a publicly verifiable fact? Yes, it is. Why did Arudou change his legal name? Because he filed for divorce. How do we know that he filed for divorce? Because Arudou HIMSELF wrote an essay on it and then publicized it HIMSELF (hence the "self-publicized") in various venues on the internet, as Arudou acknowledges in his essay. These facts are (a) publicly verifiable, (b) not original research, and (c) written in a neutral tone, so I added them to the article. As far as I am concerned, there are no value judgements involved.

Meanwhile, the anonymous user thinks the term “invites misunderstandings and is nasty,” both somehow at the same time. But can the user please be more specific? The term, “publicized divorce,” is a common expression when reading about the divorces of public figures in the neutral print media.—J Readings 05:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Article name

Shouldn't this article be moved to Debito Arudou? Isn't it standard to write the first name first on Wikipedia, even with Japanese names? Ornilnas 17:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You raise a good point. It looks like "Debito Arudou" was redirected to this page in 2004, along with several other variations. I checked several other Japanese names listed in Wikipedia. They all follow the Western convention. Perhaps we should correct it now.—J Readings 09:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Detractors

It is noteworthy that Arudou also has a number of detractors. The foreigner community in Japan has not been unanimous in his support. One of the reasons is his somewhat confrontational movement style. When he was denied entry to Unohana Onsen, by his own admission, he was drunkenly making a commotion. Establishments in the Otaru area had chronically been inconvenienced by drunken Russian sailors to the extent that the mere sight of them drove away customers. Unohana Onsen has suffered a long history of Russians intruding into the women's bath, breaking glass on the floors and stealing possessions of the customers. Detractors argue that Arudou did nothing to convince the Onsen that he was any different. In fact, detractors say, the only thing different about his actions is that he sued when he was denied entry. His detractors argue that his actions only serve to enhance the image of foreigners as trouble makers in the eyes of the Japanese. Arudou's counter argument is that he is legally a Japanese citizen and therefore entitled to sue. But it has not silenced naysayers who believe that his movement is doing more harm than good.

(The above has been posted on the main article. Feel free to edit the main article as need be, but the original should remain on the discussion board.)

--Oscar—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.163.12.72 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 29 December 2005.

---

I recommend the Detractors section be deleted in its entirety. It appears to be written by one of those detractors, who is not writing objectively. The facts of the case are distorted or incorrect, and it adds nothing to the encyclopaedic nature of the section.

Quotes and comments:

"Foreigner community in Japan has not been unanimous in his support." --This goes without saying. Nothing has the full support of everyone, not to mention an activist.

"Unohana Onsen" in two places --Misspelled "Yunohana".

"by his own admission, he was drunkenly making a commotion..." --Need source

--The original source was http://www.debito.org/ but the paragraph describing how Arudo was "celebrating" his newly aquired Japanese citizenship by barging drunkenly into the Onsen has now been edited.

"somewhat confrontational movement style" --This is a matter of opinion, not of fact, and should not be stated as such in an encyclopaedic entry.

--This is, rather, the bases of an opinion held by many people.

"chronically been inconvenienced... mere sight of them..." etc. --Need source, and hyperbolic

--The original source was private correspondence with Yunohana Onsen. However, Arudo and anybody associated with the case should be well aware that one of the chain of Onsens associated with Yunohana was run out of business and forced to close due to disruptive actions of Russian sailors. This was one of the main arguments of Yunohana in their defence.

"Unohana Onsen has suffered a long history of Russians intruding into the women's bath..." etc.

--Yunohana (correct spelling) apparently never let any foreigners into its bath, refusing them at the door from when it opened in 1998. http://www.debito.org/lawsuitbackground.html --Need source on those examples of theft, broken glass, and lewdness taking place at Yunohana.

--Also private correspondence with Yunohana, but the issue was repeatedly raised in the course of the trial.

"Detractors say Arudou did nothing..." --Need source

--By his own admission, on http://www.debito.org/ , Arudo recieved complaints from many angry locals, most of whom were clearly unconvinced that Arudo was not just another trouble maker. Since this is practically the only English language source on this subject, English speaking detractors base their opinions on this site. All people interested in this topic, therefore, are advised to read http://www.debito.org/ thoroughly and reach their own conclusions.

"Arudou's counter argument is that he is legally a Japanese citizen and therefore entitled to sue." --Need source. And this is not the only argument Arudou (and two other plaintiffs, who are not Japanese citizens) made to sue. http://www.debito.org/lawsuitjustification.html

Clearly this Wikipedia entry is being altered by someone with an axe to grind. Recommend deletion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.27.54.213 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 2 January 2006.

Clearly this Wikipedia entry is being altered by someone with an axe to grind. Or perhaps, Arnold, someone without a specific axe, but who finds your actions just a little bit obnoxious? Even if he/they are gaijin themselves? Not everybody supports you in this, you know. Some of us think you would have done better using a bit of diplomacy instead of stomping off to court. Just because you have the right to sue doesn't mean it's the best thing to do in this case.... Recommend inclusion.

--Deletion is acceptable as long as the original entry remains on the disscussion area. The fact remains that little is available in the English language on the issue of Arudo Debito's actions other than his own words. By deleting counter arguments, Arudo and his supporters are underscoring the impression that they are using Wikipedia as their personal pipe organ.

---

Unless we let Arudou write his own arguements in the article (presented as independent material) it is difficult to support the content of the Detractors section. Without looking at the history, it reads as if it were written by a non-sceptical Japanophile who believes in Japan's unique culture (whose isn't) which avoids confrontation at all costs. See Sino-Japanese War, Second Sino-Japanese War, Pacific War.

Don't be an apologist for Japan. It's a great place with a few nasty attitudes. If you want my explicit POV, Arudou is a non-violent protester against racism and the courts are a legitimate and appropriate place to tackle the overt signs of the xenophobia. In the meantime, I may start a Supporters section (?). DMC 06:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms

It is also notable that, as of this writing (Jan. 3, 2006) Arudo Debito and his supporters have never once complained about the numerous "Whites Only" and "Gaijin Only" establishments in Japan, nor has he made any protest about the anti-Asian prejudice in his own home town. http://www.asianweek.com/091997/dennys.html Due to these traits, he has frequently been attacked on Japanese internet bouletin boards such as "2 channel" as an "anti-Japan White supremacist". http://www.2ch.net/

-I think if you were to add these criticisms, it should also be noted that he sued 2chan for libel and won. http://www.debito.org/2channelsojou.html watchreader 13:57, 5 July, 2006

Tactics

"Some of the foreign community in Japan has not been unanimous in his support. One of the reasons is his somewhat confrontational movement style." --This is a matter of opinion, not of fact, and should not be stated as such in an encyclopaedic entry.

The matter of tactics is an important issue when discussing efforts to overcome prejudice. Whether Arudo belongs in the same grouping as Rosa Parks or Louis Farrakhan or Malcolm X or any random vandal setting fire and throwing stones to any business he deems racist is judged mainly by the tactics he involves in his movement.

Mr. Arudo has taken full advantage of the fact that his own website is practically the only source of information in the English language on his movement. He has done so by witholding obviously important facts.

For example, he has written an article about how he was stopped by the police multiple times as he was riding a borrowed bicycle implying that foreigners in Japan are ruitinely harrassed by the police. He neglected to mention that this was on the day before a World Cup soccer game when the police were on high alert for foreign hooligans. And he actually took a plane to a different town and borrowed a bicycle (how did the police know it was a 'borrowed' bike? RACIAL PROFILING!) to perform this demonstration on this given day.

On the onsen issue, he neglects to say that there are numerous onsens in his own neighborhood of South Sapporo where foreigners are quite welcome. He also neglects to say that he drove four hours to be denied service by an onsen that was known not to service foreigners. Known by whom?

The pattern of his actions is that he has deliberately sought trouble to make noise about. Trouble, it seems, that one would not stumble on if one lived a normal, quiet life. He has frequently been challenged on his selective use of facts as well as his movement style. To this day, he has not provided an answer that can silence his detractors.

=============

In response to the question: "deep down, you are still ****, right?": It's no doubt that I am connected in some way to the identity I was "born into", and externally, also, I tend to appear to be "something" by default. But the question is: why do I HAVE TO be "something"? Dunshi 09:15, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A couple of things.

First, if you're going to dispute an article you must use the discussion page to enumerate your reasons and attempt to reach a solution. If the disputer fails to do this in the next short while, I'm removing the dispute tag from the article.

Second, the article is encyclopaedic because Arudou is a teacher, author and activist who is well-known, has written several books, and has been a part of high profile and important, from a human- and foreigner's rights point of view, legal cases in Japan. He is also one of the few non-Japanese, non-Asians to have taken Japanese citizenship.

Third, I'm puzzled by the move/name change. Again, Whisper to me, what are you doing? Exploding Boy 15:45, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Reversion

Hi, I'd like to know why my edits on this were reverted.

If you don't want the breakdown of the name kanji, fine, but the publications section is inaccurate as is. Arudou (and that's not his first name..) was not refused entry to Yunohana Onsen on the grounds that he was "not Japanese". The manager acknowledged that he was Japanese but refused to allow him entry anyway on the grounds that racist customers would then avoid the onsen. Also, he did not have his daughter with him at the time. See the transcript. -- Hyphz—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyphz (talk • contribs) 12:20, 3 August 2005.

While I do not know why your edits were reverted, your above statement contains your personal point of view (POV) that is not supposed to be included in Wikipedia. "Racist customers" is a POV statement based on the assumption that the customers had no other reason than racism to avoid foreigners at Yunohana Onsen. It is often neglected that Yunohana and other establishments in Otaru are chronically plagued with the uncivil, and often violent, behavior of Russian sailors to such an extent that the mere sight of them drives away customers. Debito, in his crusade, has not taken any steps to assure other customers that he is any different from the Russians. On the day he was refused entry, by his own admission, he was drunk and loudly making a commotion. Your above statement would be less POV if you replaced "racist customers" with "customers fearful of unlawful acts by foreigners due to past experiences". Whether such customers are "racist" when they encounter sober and well-mannered foreigners in envioronments other than where they could be naked and vulnerable remains to be tested.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.163.12.72 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 29 December 2005.

Contradiction.

Maybe somebody got a date wrong. The article says he was naturalized in 2000, but also that he had already been naturalized before the incident in 1999. I've copied the contradictory text below:

---

Arudou became a permanent resident of Japan in 1996, and renounced his American citizenship and was naturalized as a Japanese citizen in 2000, whereupon, as required by Japanese law, he took a Japanized name.

Arudou... went with some Japanese friends to an onsen (hot spring) in the Hokkaido town of Otaru in 1999. The onsen in question was known to refuse non-Japanese patrons. Arudou assumed that, as a naturalized Japanese citizen, he would not be refused...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peligro (talk • contribs) 06:59, 16 November 2005.

Birthday

It would be nice to have more basic biographical information for the article. Like for instance, his birthday. If anyone could find this it would help out a lot. Sudachi 17:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please consult the following Wikipedia policy Biographies of living persons with regard to the policies on providing birthdays for living people. --Sgsilver 10:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Info on Debito

On matters of interest that are missing from the article, I would suggest trying to email Debito (his address is probably available through his website, and shouldn't be hard to find if it isn't). He'd probably be happy to help, and might be able to improve the article. Exploding Boy 23:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It's on the site, I've e-mailed him in the past. Speaking of his site, I don't see a link to it in the article. I'll add one now. --Do Not Talk About Feitclub (contributions) 10:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Otaru Onsent lawsuit section

I'm curious as to what the basis is for the line "An investigation revealed that other similar cases had occurred at the same onsen, such as a case where a mixed-race family (who were nonetheless all Japanese citizens) had been split up, with only those whose appearance took after the Japanese side of the family being admitted."

I've seen on Debito's webpage that this has happend to his own family (kore wa hen da yo nihonjin! interview), but could there be a citation of other instances of this? The way that it's worded now it seems like there is some kind of neutral investigation that occured with many many people, and one such case was a mixed race family. The way I understand it now, the only investigation that took place was Debito taking HIS family and facing discrimination, which is a single case. Indeed, a previous version used this version was used but altered inexplicably.

This is relevent because a lot of the criticism regarding Arudo Debito is around his omission of biased details to make them seem neutral (going to places where he knew he would be thrown out, bicycling during a crowded event with lots of white foreigners and acting all indignified when the cops think he's one of them, etc.) If there are other cases, we should cite them. If his family's case is the only case and it is presented differently, than his critics will point this out and dismiss his claims unfairly. --watchreader

No Citations Yet

For the time being, I am removing two assertions from the main page. They are the following:

"An investigation revealed that other similar cases had occurred at the same onsen, such as a case where a mixed-race family (who were nonetheless all Japanese citizens) had been split up, with only those whose appearance took after the Japanese side of the family being admitted."

The above quotation has remained on the article's main page for quite a while without any supporting citations. While the statement may be true, I'm removing it to the 'discussion' page until an editor can provide a verifiable public source for the claim. Having read Arudou's homepage and the book, my sense is that the assertion is false. Hopefully, an editor can clarify the statement.

The second paragraph that I am removing in its entirety can be found in the criticism section. It reads:

"Some critics object to Arudou's choice of targets, asserting that far more pressing and pervasive discriminatory behavior exists in Japan. Such alleged problems include racial discrimination in apartment rentals, the granting of tenured academic positions in Japanese universities, and the right of foreign fathers to gain access to their children in the event of divorce. Nevertheless, Arudou created the Blacklist of Japanese Universities [1] in 1997 to raise the issue of discriminatory hiring practices in Japanese universities, and has also written about and linked to other activists dealing with issues such as child custody and divorce. [2]"

I'm removing this paragraph for three reasons. First, there is no citation to support the initial statement. Second, the critics should be identified, either directly in the main text or in a footnote. Third, it's a rather sweeping criticism that may be true (if I citation can be provided), but probably needs to be edited when a citation finally can be provided.J Readings 18:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

For the onsen citation, see my critique above. I have found one source which states "The onsen manager looked at Arudou’s children and declared that older Japanese looking daughter could enter the onsen, but her younger Western looking sister could not." (http://www.japanreview.net/review_arudou_and_lazlo.htm) --Watchreader 23:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

A Wikipedia editor (61.27.73.16) challenges three more sentences. The first challenge deals with Arudou's rationale for leaving the construction company. I moved the citation to that clause for clarity, but to be clear, the article simply states a fact on Arudou's homepage (already quoted in the footnotes). He was claiming (NPOV) that he was being racially harrassed in a way that was different from other Japanese. The Wikipedia article neither confirms nor denies Arudou's assertion.

The second challenge deals with Arudou's group trip to the onsen to test rumors of racial discrimination. I agree that this point deserves a citation. But I think that fact comes from Arudou's book, among other places on the internet. I don't have the book in front of me right now. Hopefully, someone can supply a citation soon.

The third challenge requests a citation for the introduction sentence on the Criticism section. I don't understand why this challenge is necessary given that the rest of the section develops the very points raised in the introduction. I agree with the editor that had it said "all" or "most" within the sentence that this introduction would be unreasonable. But the introduction simply states that "some" critics have argued these issues, which is a statement of fact.J Readings 13:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Background

A Wikipedia editor (61.27.71.47) challenged almost every unsourced statement in the background and naturalization section of this article. At first, I was going to help to clarify the unsourced statements, until I realized that most (all?) of them are basic positive facts (see "When adding material to the biography of a living person" under "Citing Sources" in the Guidelines) that can be easily traced back to the original "background" article on Arudou's homepage, which is already cited more than once. Citing every single setence becomes overkill, no? This leaves me scratching my head as to what we should make of the challenge. Either the editor wasn't aware of this, *or* the editor is suggesting that Arudou's autobiographical details are not to be trusted. It would be helpful if this person could clarify. To be fair, I remember the recommendation in the Wikipedia guidelines on sourcing that we should avoid relying too much on one source if it's a controversial subject. But I hardly think that a birth year, date of permanent residency, and a naturalization fall into this category. I recommend leaving the unsourced statements in these sections as is. Does anyone disagree?J Readings 11:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)