Talk:Metropolis (English magazine in Japan)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Verifiability 2 Controversy Section Deletion 3 Speedy Deletion 4 Advertising Warning

[edit] Verifiability

I'm having a lot of trouble with this article trying to meet WP:V, if you are working on this article please add sources or remove content that is unsourced. --Simonkoldyk 17:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:V, you must cite reliable sources (not the website itself) and it must be in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simonkoldyk (talk • contribs) 05:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Please see Wikipedia:Citing_sources, you have to actually cite the source in the page. --Simonkoldyk 05:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Using the magazine as its own source does not contravene the policy. What WP:V actually says is:

Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s) Material from self-published sources, and published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources in articles about the author(s) of the material, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving;
• it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

Sparkzilla 05:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Even so you still need to Wikipedia:Citing_sources cite the source on the actual page. --Simonkoldyk 05:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Citing_sources is considered a guideline. The items mentioned are not contentious, nor do they need to be referenced directly in the article. Sparkzilla 05:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. From WP:V, official policy. --Simonkoldyk 05:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Who is challenging that the name was previously "Tokyo Classified"?

Why is there any need to challenge the number of people who attend a party?

Sparkzilla 05:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please source "According to Japan's Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC) the magazine is the highest distribution English magazine in Japan", in the article. --Simonkoldyk 06:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Metropolis is the only English magazine in Japan that has its distribution certified by ABC, therefore the statement is correct. The source is ABC itself, and is published in the magazine next to a Japan ABC seal mark. The statement is verifiable and sourced according to Wikipedia policy. Sparkzilla 07:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy Section Deletion

SparkZilla - Re your claims of un-verifiability of the above deleted section.

Verifiability is Wikipedia official policy.

Verifiability is to be considered in conjunction with NOR and NPOV.

Verifiability:

• Articles should contain material published by a reliable source. (reliable source is a Wikipedia guideline)

I have cited material published by a reliable, third-party published source. There is no reason to believe that the sources are of a dubious reliability with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Neither can I find a alternative reliable source which casts doubt on on the editorial integrity of the Japan Traveller magazine. The claims are not of an "exceptional" nature requiring a stronger source than I have given.

I believe that the sources are reliable because:

Readers can check that this material has been published by a reliable source by looking at the Japan Traveler magazine dated November 1999.

• Editors adding new material should also cite that source.

This I have done.

• The onus is, as the editor adding the material, on me to cite the sources.

This I have done.

NOR:

No original research is Wikipedia official policy.

The material is not original research and is drawn from published, reliable sources that can be found. It is not my personal unpublished opinion, theory or view. Neither does it advance any particular position I may hold. I have produced a reliable source in support of the material.

NPOV:

Neutral point of view is Wikipedia official policy.

I am not associated with either Metropolis/Tokyo Classified nor Japan Traveller. I have represented Mr Gibbs' views fairly and without bias - that have been published by a reliable source. I have not asserted that Mr Gibbs' claims are true. I have characterised Mr Gibbs claims and not engaged in them.

Lastly, The material is verifiable and I object to your removing this material. Following Wikipedia guidelines, if you believe the material to be un-sourced, there are several options open to you - including but not limited to: considering moving the material in question to the talk page; adding the {{tl:fact}} template; tag the article by adding {{tl:not verified}} or {{tl:unreferenced}}, It is not necessary to delete it outright. I request that you respond giving your reasons why you believe this material to be un-verifiable.61.195.202.121 09:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

From WP:V Burden of Evidence

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

1. I have checked the Japan Traveler website, but there is no reference to the item, even in the issue you mention.

2. Even if there was such an item, Japan Traveler does not constitute a credible source.

from WP:V Sources of dubious reliability

In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about the author(s). (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

3. Creating such a large "controversy" sectION violates WP:NPOV#Undue_weight

4. The item on the court case is also unverifiable by any external source.

You have no credible sources so the material should be removed.

[1]Jimbo Wales: I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a Barnstar

Sparkzilla 12:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The burden of evidence does indeed lie with me as the editor of additional material. I have cited the Japan Traveler website, which did indeed present the material I refer to, even if it is not on-line now does not mean that the material ever existed. Please cite Wikipedia policy which has to show that past material must still be viewable now to be a credible source. You have neglected to address my reference to the article which appeared in the Japan Traveler magazine which is easily verifiable - have you checked that also? Please cite you source (according to Wikipedia policy) for your claim that the Japan Traveler magazine is a source "of dubious reliability" and a "poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight." Otherwise it is merely your opinion. I am happy to include the material within the body of the article rather than a separate section. Furthermore, instead of deleting the material you should follow Wikipedia guidelines which I outlined above

202.213.156.202 14:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We only have your word that the article ever existed. You cannot show a source for the information therefore it should not be included on the page.

As for the dubious reliability part, the burden of proof is on you to show that Japan Traveler is a reliable source, not for others to disprove it. Even then you should note that "Articles about such sources should not repeat any potentially libellous claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." Reliable means a newspaper article.

You have no original article, you have to prove that Japan Traveler is a reliable source, and you also do not have a truly reliable source as a backup. In such cases Wikipedia policy (as noted by Jimbo Wales above) is to agressively keep the information off the page.Sparkzilla 17:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As the originator of the material, I can show a source, as the original article still exists in the November 1999 copy of the Japan Traveller magazine, which I have already cited. Readers can check that this material has been published by a reliable source by looking at the magazine. Indeed the printed magazine source is better than a website as, according to Wikipedia (WP:RS) policy under Persistance: "If a reader goes to the cited source to validate a statement, or to gain further understanding of the topic, the form cited should remain stable, continuing to contain the information used by the editor to support the words. In this sense a book or journal citation is superior to an online source where the link may become broken. Some web resources have editorial policies which lead to a lack of persistence; therefore, web citations should be treated with caution."

For the record, are you saying that the material does not appear in the November 1999 issue of the magazine?

Further, the claims made are not of an "Exceptional" nature (again see (WP:RS) and do not have to be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources.

Japan Traveller is a reliable primary source.

Japan Traveller was a free distribution color monthly city guide and classified ads magazine for Tokyo's English-speaking community. It provided commentary on Japan-related political, social and community issues such as immigration, police and human rights. It also included a regular Science & Culture section; CD Reviews and guides to places of interest in the Kanto area. Examples of the magazine back-issues can be found at The Japan Traveler website [2]

The source is not of a dubious nature and in the absence of any verifiable cliams to the contrary, I propose that the material be included.220.157.144.78 01:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Burden of Prooof As the editor placing material, the burden of proof is on you to show that the article exists, that it comes from a credible source, and that its information, which is exceptional and potentially libelous is confirmed by other sources.

Inviting editors to check the print copy of a magazine that may or may not exist is not credible. It would be different if you invited them to check a newspaper or a well-known magazine.

Exceptional claim A claim of "fraud" is an exceptional claim. According to WP:RS a red flag should be raised when an editor adds 'Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known'. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources. You dont even have the original article!!!

Self Published WP:RS The article, if it does even exist, would also come under self-published sources. Mr Gibbs, the author of the article, is also the publisher.

When a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

Please note the "not been subject to any independent fact checking" part.

Primary Sources You say Japan Treveler is a reliable primary source. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reliable source, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources.

Notability and Credibility I seriously doubt Japan Traveler can pass any notability test. The magazine apparently had few pages, no notable journalists or stories, a short lifespan (it stopped publication six years ago), and apparently low distribution. It is not up to editors to prove that your source is not credible, you must prove its crediblity.

Also, if I understand it correctly, Japan Traveler would have been a competitor to Metropolis, which would further undermine the credibility of the source.

So you have

• No source
• No credibility in the source
• No notability of the source
• Self-published source
• Conflict of interest
• Primary source with no confirmation from a reliable secondary source
• Exceptional content that needs confirmation from a reliable source
• Potentailly libelous content that needs confirmation from a reliable source

The point is moot anyway. Metropolis has its circulation verified by Japan's Audit Bureau of Circulations since 2000. It is exactly this type of unverifiable content that Wikipedia is designed to reject. Sparkzilla 19:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have noted your opinion and will return to this after the New Year break with with my decision and a view to take this to an informed wikipedia authority. 70.23.153.146 03:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I like your in-line format edit - it kind of reduces the impact, don't you think? Since circulation is about figures it is germane here to touch upon the claimed figures - which I have added. I can find no evidence that Metropolis responded to the Japan Traveler's claims with certification, nor can I find any reference to certification in 2000. I have therefore removed those unverifiable claims. The 2006 certificate is a primary source - a secondary one would be better. Small point though. 221.253.85.230 03:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I see, you are editing for "impact". Please keep an encyclopedic tone. I have added the full numbers of the claim. Sparkzilla 04:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Deletion

The largest (verifiable) English-language magazine in Japan is obviously worthy of a Wikipedia entry.

If the page was actually spam user Simonkoldyk would have requested the deletion earlier. His attempts to pick issues with the page have been countered by verifiable information. This deletion request seems simply to be motivated by spite.

From the policy WP:CSD :

Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for Speedy Deletion: an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well.

Sparkzilla 09:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• The relationship of Sparkzilla to Metropolis Magazine was not previously raised. Obviously if he is the co-owner of Metropolis this is blatant advertising. Wanzhen 07:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising Warning

Please stop adding commercial material to Wikipedia. It is considered spam, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

• Sparkzilla this is a warnng that you are violating Wikipedia policy regarding vandalism and advertising on the National Union of General Workers entry. Wanzhen 07:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)