Criticism removed from Debito Arudou Wikipedia entry

Activist Debito Arudou, who was last featured on this blog in an editorial entitled “Is Debito still relevant?“, recently began demanding through is blog that the Wikipedia entry about him be edited to remove “slanted depictions” of his activities.

Debito’s complaints included:

• The inclusion of a “criticism” section means that “overwhelming voice given to the critics and no voice given any supporters for balance.”
• Several descriptions included historical inaccuracies, such as incorrect years.
• An avoidance of citing certain third-party sources because they were archived on Debito’s own website.
• The article did not mention enough of his publications.
• Many of the articles by well-known figures and authors was from a site called JapanReview.net, a “non-peer reviewed” that Debito contends is probably connected to Wikipedia editors.
• The critics quoted, some of whom were authors, were not “published authorities on human rights in Japan,” so their criticism did not belong in the article.
• The inclusion of “irrelevant” personal information about his family life, such as his divorce.
• The names of his daughters were in the article, and they do not want to be public figures.

The entry, which had a somewhat negative slant, probably did need a rewrite. Its very detailed “Criticism” section was nearly the same length of the rest of the article, and it is Wikipedia policy to encourage users to incorporate criticism of controversial figures into the main body of the articles instead of aiming for a favorably-slanted article with negative commentary thrown in at the end.

Since Debito’s August 22nd post, the Wikipedia entry has been altered quite a bit, and most of the critical statements about Debito have been removed. A couple Japanese blogs that sometimes post about Debito have picked up on this fact, and they aren’t pleased with what they see as attempts by Debito to delete legitimate criticism of his activities. However, their criticism may be a bit premature, as the article is in the process of being rewritten and there remains a slight chance that the rewrite will include many of the quotes originally found in the older version.

I suspect that the rewritten Wikipedia entry will concede to many of Debito’s demands, annoying his critics, but it will probably still contain sections that Debito won’t like. When it comes to issues over which people have strong opposing views, Wikipedia tends to fail at delivering fair and accurate articles, and I’m not expecting anything different from this latest controversy.

Those of you who missed the old Wikipedia entry can read its “criticism” section below. While I do not think it was particularly suited to Wikipedia’s stance against “criticism” sections in entries, it’s probably worth saving in some form because it does provide a pretty good summary of what various critics of Debito have to say about him:

Criticism

“ People, including me, are fascinated by Debito Arudou because we wonder why he wanted to become Japanese in a country where he finds so many wrongs. ”
—Robert C. Neff [28]

Anna Isozaki, one of Arudou’s former colleagues who was initially active in the BENCI (Business Excluding Non-Japanese Customer Issho) project (unconnected to Arudou’s “Community in Japan” project), said that Arudou has an unwillingness to co-operate within a larger organization and that Arudou felt resentment against being told to separate “the apparent center of activity from himself.” [29]

Alex Kerr, author of Dogs and Demons: Tales from the Dark Side of Japan (ISBN 0-8090-3943-5), believed that Arudou’s tactics are “too combative.” Kerr said that he was doubtful “whether in the long run it really helps.” According to Kerr, “in Japan… [the combative] approach fails.” Kerr said that “gaijin and their gaijin ways are now part of the fabric of Japan’s new society,” and feared that Arudou’s activities may “confirm conservative Japanese in their belief that gaijin are difficult to deal with.”[30] On 7 April 2007, Arudou publicly criticized Kerr’s comments on his personal blog and mass e-mail newsletter lists. Following Arudou’s public criticisms, Kerr responded in an open e-mail posted by Arudou elaborating on his initial impressions of Arudou’s tactics, his current impressions of Arudou’s newsletter and website, and Kerr’s own distinct techniques for being critical in the field of “traditional culture, tourism, city planning, and the environment” — “to speak quietly, from ‘within.’” Respecting Arudou’s “undoubtedly combative” tactics, Kerr now concluded by stating: “I wholly support [Arudou’s] activities and [his] methods.”[31]

Responding to Arudou’s statements regarding the United States Department of State in the Hokkaido International Business Association (HIBA), Alec Wilczynski, Consul General, American Consulate General Sapporo, said that Arudou’s statements contain “antics,” “omissions,” and “absurd statements” as part of an attempt “to revive interest in his flagging ‘human rights’ campaign.” On his website Arudou responded with the statement “A surprising response from a diplomat,” and posted commentary from an associate regarding the renunciation of Arudou’s United States citizenship.[10]

Gregory Clark, Akita International University Vice-President, views the lawsuit as the product of “ultrasensitivity” and “Western moralizing.”[32][33] Yuki Allyson Honjo, a book critic at JapanReview.net, criticized Clark’s statements and referred to him as one of a group of “apologists.” [34] Clark responded to Honjo’s criticism, believing that Honjo mis-characterized his statements. Honjo responded by saying that her use of the word “apologist” applied to Clark’s particular stance on Arudou’s case and not as a sweeping generalization of Clark’s character. Honjo maintained her stance regarding Clark’s statements. [35]

Arudou has been criticized as “fishing for trouble”, and that he “distort[s] the facts”. “If there is insufficient media scrutiny, it is of Arudou’s outlandish claims.”[36]

Robert Neff, author of Japan’s Hidden Hot Springs (ISBN 0-8048-1949-1), believes that much of Arudou’s campaign is divisive, stating: “I think much of his campaign is faux because most of the places he is going after are in Hokkaido trying to protect themselves from drunken Russians. I have bathed and/or stayed at well over 200 onsen establishments and been stopped only once.”[28]

“ Arudou and his family should not have been excluded from the onsen in Otaru, but I suspect I am not alone in objecting to the way this unpleasant, but essentially trivial incident has been parlayed into a career opportunity.”
—Peter Tasker

Peter Tasker, author of numerous non-fiction and fiction works on Japan, argues that in “attempting to monster [Japan] into George Wallace’s Alabama, [Arudou] trivializes the real-life brutal discrimination that still disfigures our world and the heroic campaigners who have put themselves on the line to fight it.”[37] Alexander Kinmont, a former chief equity strategist of NikkoCitygroup, does not believe that a collection of bath-houses, “soaplands,” massage parlors, and nightclubs is representative of Japan’s civil rights situation in any meaningful sense.[38] Tasker and Kinmont object to Arudou’s statements comparing the institutionalized racial discrimination historically exhibited in the segregated American south with the examples that, according to Arudou, show racial discrimination in Japan.[37][38]