Talk:Norimitsu Onishi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Norimitsu Onishi article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
  1. Most of 2006


Contents

[edit] corean-japanese

Adding more original Japanese text:

7/13/2006　週刊新潮 146P　変見自在　連載207　「似非日本人」 帝京大学教授　高山正之

...米国と同じに豊かで教育の高い日本にもアジア、とくに朝鮮などから多くの人が流れ込んできた。 　ただ彼らは米国でのようにグリーンカードで苦労することはない。日本に留学すれば、週二十八時間のアルバイトが許されるが、それを無視してフルタイムで働いてもだれも文句は言わない。 　卒業すれば、希望者のほば半数が就職でき、そのまま居つくこともできる。日本人学生の就職率が七割前後だというのに。 　さらに市民権、つまり帰化するのに試験もない。日の丸を振って日本に忠誠を誓う儀式もない。 　民団幹部は「米国で市民権を得たら親族中でお祝いする。それが日本だと、まあそれもいいかくらいの受け止め方」だと。 　感謝の気持ちもなしに帰化した彼らは、芸能界やマスコミなどで多く活動している。あるときのＮＨＫ紅白歌合戦では北島三郎ら五人を除いてすべて外国系だったという話もある。 　ハリウッドでのユダヤ系の活躍にも近いが、米国とは違って日本ではその出自をなぜか隠したがる。 　日本人はそれを気にしないが、ただそれが犯罪となると話は変わってくる。 　帰化韓国人の織原城二がルーシーさんを殺害した事件で、ＮＹタイムズが「日本人は白人女性に変態的な欲望をもつ」と濡れ衣を着せてきたときもそうだ。 もっと問題なのは同紙東京特派員Ｎ・オオニシのようにマスコミ界にも帰化人がいて、日本人の名を使って日本を非難する。 こんな賢（さか）しい輩を排除するには米国と同じにその出自を明らかにし、発言させるべきではないか。 筑紫哲也氏もこの問題を多事争論でじっくり扱ってみたらどうだろう。[1]

Jjok

{{notenglish}}

This source doesn't point out from and to which coutry Onishi naturalized; from Japan to Canada or Korea to Japan. No explicit source is mentioned as for the matter as pointed out in the Japanese Wikipedia page. Therefore I hereby claim this source is too implausible to be used as a reference in Wikipedia and should be eliminated in due course. --Galaksiafervojo 07:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I am quite disgusted by the pompous articles generated by this Onishi guy. But, I agree that the articles sited regarding his ethnicity have not been attributed to any primary source. --TokyoJapan 19:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment misleading to the racism in Japan

The comment such as "Onishi is also referred to as being a former naturalized Japanese citizen of Korean descent rather than pure Japanese in several articles." can be perceived by many as a hint of racism prevailed in Japan, and it's not true, at least for me. If there's any opposition for the deletion of this, I'll eliminate in 1 week. --Galaksiafervojo 23:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How on earth could it be perceived as "racism"? It doesn't make any sense at all. --218.222.11.207 23:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The adjective "pure" evokes the discrimination of resident aliens in Japan. It sounds like the one whose roots is outside the country rather than inside should be regarded as non-Japanese no matter how long they have dwelt so far. --Galaksiafervojo 16:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It only implies that someone who is Japanese only in citizenship but not in ethnicity would be less hesitant to castigate Japan than someone who is Japanese both ethnically and legally, and that especially the Japanese citizens of ethnic-Korean descent tend to be more critical of Japan (or the Japanese government run by the conservative LDP) than others because of the past history (comfrt women, forced labor, etc.). Anyway it's only a matter of interpretation and the sentence itself does not expressly state either of them. I removed the "rather than pure Japanese" part from the sentence and it should be fine now. --218.222.11.207 17:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not enough only to remove that crucial part since still no background info have been shown why the ethnicity has to be mentioned there. Because I'm not so familiar with this topic, I'd be grateful if you are kind enough to do it. --Galaksiafervojo 20:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This is an article on a person and his ethnicity is as much important a piece of information as the date of birth and the rest. That stating the ethnicity of someone somehow constitutes racism is a strange creation of your imagination that is as ridiculous as claiming that mentioning the father of Lenny Kravitz being Jewish is racist. We wouldn't have a whole bunch of "xxx by ethnicity" categories on Wikipedia (e.g. Category:American musicians by ethnicity, Category:Zainichi Koreans) if ethnicity were irrelevant.
It's simply a fact that Onishi is mentioned as being of Korean descent in articles that were published on major journals and written by authoritative authors. If you think that their mentioning of Onishi's ethnicity is somehow racially prejudiced, then that's your opinion. That they are racists however is only your personal pov and doesn't belong in Wikipedia whereas their claims do. Even if they were racists, it would still be worth noting that the critics of Onishi make some (what some consider) racist criticisms. --218.222.11.207 02:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have to say you are completely off the point. You cannot just refute it like only my personal standpoint as much as I cannot do yours. There can be more to think in the same manner unless reasonable logic is provided, who can say there won't? Besides, if, as you say, there's the sound reason to mention his ethnicity, how come you hesistate so much to provide it? It's only a few sentenses, isn't it? I cannot tell how long it could be, though. By the way, the major magazines you asserted are not major in the US or elsewhere. Authenticity can be disputed by anyone anytime. --Galaksiafervojo 04:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any "point" in your argument other than some weird interpretation of the sentence at issue. The very lead section of this article metnions his ethnicity like many other Wikipedia article on person: "Norimitsu Onishi is a Japanese Canadian journalist". In the case of Onishi, however, there exist some articles that report that he is rather an ethnic Korean than Japanese. Thus, the claims of those articles are mentioned in th later section. It only states what was reported in authoritative publications, and whatever your interpretation of them may be (misleading to racism or whatever), it's not worth consideration unless backed up by another reliable source. Also, if you are so clueless as to claim that the authenticity of such major Japanese news media and publishers as Sankei and Shogakukan could be disputed, I don't think you are in any position to comment on anything Japanese. --218.222.11.207 06:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
O.K. Only one comment for you. "Why are you so reluctant to provide the reason?" Simple, huh? It's not gonna be a long one, but you still resist to give it. Makes me feel like you are trying to conceal something. One more thing. It's not only me that feel in the same way. Others do, especially the ones who don't know about the country at all. Picture this. A guy without knowing anything about Japan one day sees a single sentense mentioning someone's roots, which seems nothing to do with other infomation provided around. He's gonna say, "hey, why's that given here? Is this so important for someone?" Guess who thinks ethnicity matters? You can try to deny someone's perception after he/she received the misleading information, but it's way much harder to straighten up than correcting the info beforehand. So why don't you provide the reason why his ethnicity should be mentioned there? --Galaksiafervojo 18:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
p.s. Someone's saying the authors have some kind of stereotype below. You still don't agree the authenticity is disputable?
p.p.s. Avoid using some aggressive words like weird or strange. I'm okay with them, but not everyone agrees with me.
The bottom line is that I got sources and you got none. Whatever you "feel" is irrelevant on Wikipedia as far as it is not backed up by reliable sources. --218.222.11.207 23:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not even a debate, you just push your idea and say bye-bye without answering me. Your sourse can be tainted as pointed out by someone below. But you don't even try to defend yourself, just try to shut me up. That reminds me a government of your neighbor. Really disappointed. O.K., fine. You'll see how other guys "feel." But they just see it and learn it. Unfortunately, no one will ever try to warn it smells like a scent of racism. Just got convinced, and start to think the country the way they "feel."--Galaksiafervojo 02:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Galaksiafervojo, I would like to keep this information about "his origin". I had had no idea why Onishi's articles are biased so much toward anti-Japan. Personally, I think I am left-liberal and 'anti-government and anti-LDP' to some extent. But, Onishi's articles are completely absurd even for me; that has been a puzzle to me. Now I read the hint, and I understand. If the claim about his origin was true, which I am not certain, his anti-Japan attitude would make some sence. But, the description does not sound fair. It should read like "Some claim that Onishi's father was Korean living in Japan before he and his family obtained Canadian citizenship and that it would explain the background of Onishi's anti-Japanese articles. However, their claim has not been proved yet," something like this. Correct my English. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.227.89.234 (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
I've never thought Onishi's articles were "anti-Japanese". Did you read his articles?Melonbarmonster 02:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
The information about his background was supplied by racists in Japan to somehow bolster there arugement that as an "unpure" person he obviously has anti-Japanese bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.237.103.66 (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

There is no evidence that suggests that Norimitsu is of Korean decent. This accusation is based solely on the fact that he is perceived to be critical of the Japanese right in his articles. That's a baseless, self-serving accusation and is racist because it's an accusation based on a racial stereotype. Unless someone can come up with some reference or evidence that gives credence to Norimitsu's ethnic heritage, self-serving POV guesses should be deleted from this article.Melonbarmonster 02:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That Onishi might not be ethnic Japanese is rightly presented in this Wikipedia article as an opinion of some (conservative) Japanese critics and not as a solid fact. Those who present this idea are authoritative scholars/journalists themselves, and this opinion of theirs is published in reputable media in Japan; therefore, it merits reference on Wikipedia. Even if they were racists and made those comments based not on facts but on racial prejudice, it is still true that they are authoritative scholars/journalists and their opinion is published in major media, and their opinion is still noteworthy as an example of racially prejudiced reactions to Onishi from Japanese conservatives, if not as a source to substantiate the ethnicity of Onishi. Either way, it's not up to you to judge if they are really racists and made this remark based solely on racial prejudice unless you can provide sources to substantiate it because you are nobody and your opinion is not worth reference on Wikipedia without source unlike those Japanese conservative critics. --Saintjust 04:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
One of the two sources cited for his ethnicity in the article is futile and lame as I underscored on the top of this discussion. The validity of the other one should be double-checked. It may ultimately lead to the deletion of the whole line about his ethnicity. --Galaksiafervojo 23:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
p.s. Please be polite in public like here and avoid to use some offensive expressions such as "you are nobody." It's way out of line and may cause another misunderstanding of Japan and people from Japan.
That's just a principal editing policy of Wikipedia. Read WP:NOT and WP:V thoroughly before editing anything more on Wikipedia because you don't seem to understand this very important policy. As far as you are nobody and your opinion is not published on any reputable media (or as far as your opinion is not supported by the opinion of someone else who is notable and published on reputable media), your opinion is "futile," "lame," and not worth reference on Wikipedia. If you don't like it, go start your own blog and write whatever you like in there, not here. If you don't observe this policy , you could be banned from editing wikipedia "ultimately." Thank you very much. --Saintjust 01:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Your tone of voice is unacceptable in moral sense. "You are nobody" means "omae ha ningen no kasu," in Japanese. Just stop writing in contemptuous way like this. It's something must come even before reading the policy. Besides, I'm not disputing the authenticity of the magazine or authur this time but just dubious about the story itself. It doesn't show his nationality, from and to which country he naturalized himself, just says he had been naturalized, period. It's not a proper way to surmise only because it's from renowned media. Everything's got to be scrutinized without any exception. --Galaksiafervojo 02:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
"Nobody" is someone who is "of no importance or influence," which is the very definition of the kind of person not worth reference on Wikipedia per WP:V. The word doesn't have such a ridiculous meaning as "ningen no kasu." Study English more before accusing others of bad English. You are in no position to judge that their remark is "lame" and "futile" because you are nobody and you got no source to back up your "lame" criticism, period. Their remark on Onishi's ethnicity is being presented just as it is, as a remark made by some (conservative) Japanese critics and not as a fact, and I see no problem there. --Saintjust 02:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
You've never come and talk to people in the US, have you? Have you ever heard anything about the connotation before? It's off the dictionary, but defined in the daily uses. Sorry but you are way off the point. Read the article cited above. He just said Onishi is a "kikajin," but didn't say is a "Korean descendant."
p.s. I remember the movie Wall Street. Watch it and hear what Michael Douglas curses Charlie Sheen at the end of it.--Galaksiafervojo 20:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Ofcourse I'm not aware of such a peculiar nonai connotation of the word held by some Japanese student studying at sub-ekiben American uni. It's obvious that the "kikajin" that the author talks about through out the article is the Korean variant as he is not talking about kikajin in general or any other kinds of kikajin ("日本にもアジア、とくに朝鮮などから", "民団幹部は..."). Onishi is described as "マスコミ界にも帰化人がいて...." right after "帰化韓国人の織原城二." --Saintjust 01:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
So now you start to abuse me in Japanglish so no English natives can notice. I'm really disappointed of you. Onishi is also a "kikajin" from Japan to Canada. And it's only a guess work to scoop the meaning up from where the word is. If Onishi is really a Korean descendant, the author could've written explicitely as so, but he didn't. No one can tell why except himself, so it's not good for the reference to support the ethnicity. Besides, you'd better use alphabets instead of Japanese characters. This is English Wikipedia and every person viewing this page should be notified what we are talking about. But only native Japanese can understand how you insulted me. --Galaksiafervojo 02:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The article expressly discuss Korean kikajin in the Japanese society as opposed to immmigrants in the American society. Nowhere in the article is he talking about Japanese immigrants in Canada. There is no way to interpret the word the way you do in this context. I don't think someone who makes a racially prejudiced comment like "you don't even try to defend yourself, just try to shut me up. That reminds me a government of your neighbor" is in any position to accuse others of insulting. --Saintjust 02:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Saitjust, you need to stop with your personal attacks and veiled insults. Everyone here is sick and tired of your weakly disguised excuses and POV agenda. You've been warned before on your talk page for this type of misbehavior. Wiki isn't a soapbox for your personal views. You need to stop.Melonbarmonster 02:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That person I had quarrel with was a Korean pov-pushing vandal by the name of Applyby, who has already been banned from editing Wikipedia indefinitely. You should rather be worried about yourself. --Saintjust 04:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Wait a minute, who is that guy and how come I'm that mysterious pal? It's nonsense and even outrageous, you push some unknown felonious identity on me and even threat people to alienate like that way. It's way out of line. --Galaksiafervojo 06:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Nobody's talking about you here. --Saintjust 06:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Uh-oh, I just jumped to the conclusion. Sorry about that, I just thought "That person I had quarrel with" indicates me. But still "You should rather be worried about yourself." is a threat. Don't do that to anyone, please. --Galaksiafervojo 06:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Saintjust, the author didn't explicitly describe him as a Korean descendant while he could. It's the fact with no my personal guess work attached. By the way, it's a well-known truth that China suppresses the public opinions. I just mentioned the fact, it's up to readers if it's in bad manner or the other. Besides, the personal attack is strictly prohibited in any way in Wikipedia. Stop harassing me now. Just focus on the point or leave. --Galaksiafervojo 03:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The author only used "帰化人" for short in the second reference to "帰化韓国人." Claiming that it could be interpreted as anything else in this context is nitpicking nonsense. As for the latter point, now that's a very interesting "connotation" (or a "lame" attempt to excuse racism) that you could have "expressly" stated in the first place. Stop judging others before yourself. --Saintjust 03:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
It's NOT written on the article, just a part of your guess. You see something others cannot see. And it never fulfill the requirement as a reference in Wikipedia. There are many who take the article in my way, at least two agreed above. And use ALPHABET, PLEASE. I know there are English natives who understand the verbal expressions but not literal one. I'm just trying to neutralize the article deleting some feebly supported remarks, not to personalize it.--Galaksiafervojo 03:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, the article expressly discuss Korean kikajin in the Japanese society as opposed to immmigrants in the American society ("とくに朝鮮などから", "民団幹部は..."). Nowhere in the article is the author talking about Japanese immigrants in Canada or any other kinds of kikajin anywhere else for that matter. Onishi is described as "マスコミ界にも帰化人" right after "帰化韓国人の織原城二." There is no way that this could be interpreted as meaning "Onishi is also a kikajin from Japan to Canada" like you allege because the word "にも" makes no sense if interpreted that way. The author only used "帰化人" for short in the second reference to "帰化韓国人" just not to be redundant. Claiming that "帰化人" could be interpreted as anything else like "Japanese immigrants in Canada" in this context is nonsense. If you contest otherwise, please elaborate on the reason why he would use the word "帰化人" (or why he did not "explicitly describe him as a Korean descendant while he could") other than avoiding redundance. What's the "connotation" of "while he could"? How on earth could it still make a good sense even when the word is interpreted the way you do ("Japanese immigrants in Canada")? The source refered to here is the entire paragraph, not just the single word "帰化人" out of which you are making up nonsense accusation. --Saintjust 04:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
You closed your ears to anyone else. I'm saying that is misleading. You just surmise it is a fact while there's nothing written on it. --Galaksiafervojo 06:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
All the "reason" you've got is "It's NOT written on the article, just a part of your guess!" So much for Mr. "Why are you so reluctant to provide the reason? That reminds me a government of your neighbor." --Saintjust 06:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
All right, let's take a break and bring some other guys in. It's the official procedure to resolve the dispute. Stop discussing, say, for a week, shall we? --Galaksiafervojo 06:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the other source didn't show anything about Onishi's ethnicity. You can read it here. There's clearly nothing say he is a Korean descendant. So I think it is not a proper source as for his ethnicity and safely removed from the article, isn't it? --Galaksiafervojo 06:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
To say that Onishi's Korean heritage isn't expressly and clearly articulated in this or any other article is enough to warrant its exclusion. There is still no evidence for Onishi's Korean heritage to make it credible and significant enough to include in this article. The only purpose in adding this is to further POV agenda. We should try to focus on presenting a fair and informative article on Onishi without prejudice instead of violently arguing, insulting and offending people to include this questionable, contentious, possibly racist bit.Melonbarmonster 08:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
That Onishi is of Korean heritage is expressly written in this article. --Saintjust 13:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah you need to figure out why that doesn't matter if it is or not for reasons already discussed. Those allegations are self-serving political spin based on nothing but prejudice and racial stereotyping. Fact remains that there is no evidence that lends credibility to this claim. The fact that such racist stereotyping and self-serving accusations are made by Onishi's critics is not worth stating in this already POV article given issues of POV, contentiousness, level of detail, etc..Melonbarmonster 19:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I discussed this issue with Galaksiafervojo. You discussed nothing. You can't read Japanese and analyze the article yourself. --Saintjust 00:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah we all read your discussion with Galaksiafervojo. Since there's nothing new being provided on this issue and no disagreement on arguments regarding issues POVness, contentiousness, inappropriate level of detail, etc., being offered, we should go ahead with this deletion. Melonbarmonster 00:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The credibility of the article is still intact after the discussion. There is no reason to delete it. --Saintjust 01:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
You need to read the entire discussion because there's been a lot more discussed than the credibility of an article that has no bearing on issues of POV-ness, contentiousness, inapproprate level of detail. We've been more than fair in discussing this with you. I suggest you give your response or the edits will be made.Melonbarmonster 04:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged Korean heritage and POVness of Article

Japanese conservatives, unhappy about Onishi's criticism of Japan, even claim that Onishi is a Korean decendant. Without any documented proof, any such insinuation should be eliminated from Wikipedia. John Kim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.115.84 (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. A majority of this article is already POV dribble filled with anti-Norimitsu claims and accusation without ANY balanced attention given to the positive feedback Norimitsu gets for his articles. In the discussions below, I sense no good faith effort to present the facts without prejudice but veiled insults, insincere excuses and weakly disguised POV arguments to portray Norimitsu as a journalist of questionable credibility. Inclusion of an accusation that is unverifiable, contentious only serves to further POV agenda. Let's be honest here. This is another attempt at adding to obvious POV advocacy. Groundless comments about Norimitsu's Korean heritage needs to be deleted and this entire article reworked.

Furthermore, NO ONE has offered any explanation of any legitimate evidence for Norimitsu's alleged Korean heritage which proves the threadbare credibility of of claim. So far it's a self-serving claim based solely on racist prejudice and stereotype that's an obvious violation of WP:not. This bit about Norimitsu's supposed Korean heritage needs to be deleted.Melonbarmonster 12:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As I underlined below, the source cited in the article is not sufficient to support his ethnicity. I also assessed another reference[2], but it did not mention his roots either. Therefore I strongly suggest the statement to be deleted and the article to be revised thoroughly from objective point of view. --Galaksiafervojo 00:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
This level of detail isn't appropriate for this Wiki article and only serves to add to over-the-top POV advocacy. You should go ahead and make the appropriate

deletions.Melonbarmonster 02:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but there's still someone has something to say

below. We'd better wait until he/she agrees or leaves. I think it's the way Wikipedia ought to be. --Galaksiafervojo 03:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion below has pretty much run its course. Reasons given in this discussion section and below has not be disputed. You should go ahead with the deletion.Melonbarmonster 00:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate edits made since discussion ran its course and no objections raised. Article still needs to be rewritten to reflect a NPOV presentation of facts and not a list of POV agenda to discredit Norimitsu for perceived politics. Allegations of Norimitsu's ethnicity should be presented in context of racism issues and political context of criticism against Norimitsu.Melonbarmonster 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is perfectly npov as it rightly presents the opinion of authoritative authors published in reputable media as it is (i.e. as an opinion of them and not necessarily as a fact). On the other hand, the alleged accusation that they are pieces to "discredit Norimitsu" above has zero sources and is itself highly pov. What does someone being Korean have to do with his credibility anyway? It makes no sense. --Saintjust 23:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd rather not get into stupid pov fingerpointing crap so chill out with that.
And no one's saying those "opinions" weren't published or that they don't exist. That's not the issue.
The issue is that, as I've already explained, the controversy section just lists conservative complaints without even an attempt at presenting the non-conservative, let alone Norimitsu's, perspective. I said conservative claims and accusation are pov because non-conservative politics would see things differently. Regardless of your politics or mine, the article should present both and explain context of the politics between the two sides. When you list just one side without proper context, that's pov.
A non-POV and balanced presentation of the facts would explain the context of the political and racial issues behind the "controversy" and accusations of Norimitsu's Korean heritage. The fact that this already unbalanced section takes up more than half of the article proves the disproportionate one-sided attention given to this already. It makes no sense to add another conservative accusation that's unproven, contentious and based solely on Norimitsu's politics. Sadly, judging people by association or by race is ridiculously racist but it's sadly commonplace in Japan.
And to spell it out for you since you asked, an obvious reason why this discredits Norimitsu is bc him being Korean would be enough to prove his perceived anti-japanese bias and lends conservatives reason to justify their claim. But that's not even that important relatively. It's a conservative complaint and a one-sided presentation is inappropriate level of detail in favor of conservative pov.
And don't revert unilaterally. We held the discussion open for 5 days before making the edit and you joined only after the edits were made.Melonbarmonster 06:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. You have not provided any reliable sources to back up your assumption that the Japanese people are so "racist" and judging people by race is "commonplace in Japan." Without sources this is itself a highly racist assumption.
  2. You have not provided any reliable sources to back up your assumption that Takayama (the author of the article at issue), being a racist Japanese, in fact believes that the credibility of criticism of Japan could be diminished if its source is exposed to be Korean because (he believes) the Koreans have "anti-Japanese bias" and so are not trustworthy.
  3. You claim that this Wikipedia article lacks balance because it presents too many articles that are critical of Onishi, and so that the mention of Onishi's Korean heritage could be deleted to make it more even. According to you, mentioning of Onishi's Korean heritage is counted as "another conservative accusation that's unproven" rather than a mere factual statement. However, unless you prove the second assumption above, it cannot be any deleteworthy "accusation."
  4. You have not provided any reliable sources to back up your assumption that the current listing of referred articles in this Wikipedia article lacks balance. Unless you have done a little research and actually read some articles on Onishi yourself, you are not in a position to judge if it's balanced or not. As far as I know, those who are making a big deal out of Onishi articles now are mostly conservatives (and the Japanese government). Although there are several short articles that introduce Onishi as a Canadian journalist in a non-critical, relatively favorable manner such as the Asahi piece cited first in this Wikipedia article, I know of no liberal critics who have written a piece to defend Onishi's case. I don't think that even Onishi himself has done so yet (at least not publicly). The lack of counter arguments from liberal seems to be due to the fact that this is a rather new issue (most of the critical articles were written in 2006), and it takes more time for counter arguments to come out. If you know of anyone who defends Onishi's case against conservative criticisms, go ahead and add them as well (with citation, of course).
Please provide sources. Unsourced opinion and conjecture don't belong in Wikipedia. --Saintjust 11:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I need to tell you that I find your requests for citation to be insincere and not in good faith. At this point I suggest that you bring in a administrator or an arbitrator if you want to press this point. I see no citations on your last comment and I'm not going to ask for citations for each of your points, as you have, because they're not appropriate in the context of our discussion. That's because we should be discussing in good faith what should be included in the article or not based on available facts and reason. Facts are not in dispute here. In any case, the only "source" that you or I could possibly claim is that conservative complaints exist... which is not in dispute as I've explained before. Please respond to the issue at hand and give me a responsive response or take this up with appropriate admin if you want to continue with your misplaced citation demands.Melonbarmonster 08:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You cannot press your point if you don't have any reliable sources to back it up. That's the fundamental editing policy of Wikpedia. For the credibility of Wikipedia contents is entirely dependent on referred sources and not on the personal opinion and original research of anonymous Wikipedia editors. The only "discussion" we could have here is on the verifiability of edits. Without sources there ain't no discussion. You cannot expect me to seriously respond to an argument based on such an assumption as this without reliable sources: "judging people by association or by race is ridiculously racist but it's sadly commonplace in Japan." --Saintjust 09:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Saintjust, as a Japanese myself, I'd hate to say this but the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reported the racism in Japan before. The report# is E/CN.4/2006/16, especially E/CN.4/2006/16/Add.2 delineates the details. You can read it here(pdf file). I don't think this is everything, but as far as I see from outside the country with others' point of view, I cannot deny it because all the tangible sources to negate it have been written or edited by Japanese exclusively. Japan needs backups not only from inside but desperately from outside. That's why I'm really sensitive about the ethnicity issue here. Besides, since there seems to be no other people joining the discussion, I suggest another week to hold the argument. We need fresh air as suggested in the guideline. --Galaksiafervojo 09:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is discussing if racism exists in Japan or not. Obviously racism exists in Japan as well as in almost every human society on the earth. --Saintjust 09:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
That source is the answer for your question 1. By the way, I just want to make one point clear: if being a Korean-Japanese means something to do with that anti-Japan propaganda as you insist, I'm afraid it reminds readers like African-Americans in the US, which had been oppressed and alienated in society for long time and that propelled them to go against the government and society. Adding to the fact that I cannot see the source the way you do, that is the another reason I don't want to mention his ethnicity. --Galaksiafervojo 17:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. That doesn't constitute an answer, and is totally off the point.
  2. Nobody is discussing here the validity of the blatantly racist stereotype that someone being Korean automatically makes him anti-Japanese. We are discussing Galaksiafervojo's assumption about Japanese people (esp. Takayama) having such a stereotype, about Japanese people being all racists who like to "judge people by race," and believe that exposing the Korean heritage of someone somehow discredits his criticism of Japan because by the alleged racist association that they practice the Koreans are all anti-Japanese. Seeing how you aren't getting the "question 1" at all, I don't expect you to get this, either. --Saintjust 18:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You've yet to give a response to my "point" so there's nothing for me to "press". We haven't had a substantive discussion about relevant issues since I responded to your initial post. You need to figure out what is or is not being disputed here and address the issue at hand. As it stands your citation demands are nonsensical. If you think I'm being unfair, please bring in an admin or arbitrator.Melonbarmonster 16:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced/unverifiable point held by a Wikipedian is not a point worth consideration on Wikipedia. --Saintjust 17:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
My point exactly. This is getting old pretty quick. Bring in an arbitrator or admin if you're going to continue with this because the discussion has run its course, Galaksiafervojo and I have reached agreement on this point and you're not introducing anything new to the table be it sources or analysis. You need to realize that cited references aren't the source of disagreement and give a response to the substantive issue at hand. Melonbarmonster 20:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unilateral edits. Let's try to stay away from edit wars and such.Melonbarmonster 21:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Without sources, your argument goes like this:
  1. I (Melonbarmonster) haven't read the Japanese article at issue myself because I can't read Japanese language, but somebody told me that it says that Onishi is of Korean heritage.
  2. Somebody also told me that Takayama, the author of the article, is a Japanese conservative, and that he doesn't like Onishi's criticism of Japan very much.
  3. Judging people by race is a common practice in the racist Japanese society. I have no source to back up this assumption, but I know it's right. Every Japanese does it.
  4. Takayama, being a racist Japanese who are prone to resort to such racist fallacies, wrote that Onishi is Korean precisely because he believes that the credibility of criticism of Japan could be diminished if its source is exposed to be Korean. Racist Japanese like himself believe that all the Koreans have "anti-Japanese bias" and so are not trustworthy on matters related to Japan by nature. I have no source on this either, but I know it must be right.
  5. Therefore, Takayama's mention of Onishi's Korean heritage is not a simple factual statement, but rather a criticism of Onishi, or "another conservative accusation that's unproven, contentious and based solely on Norimitsu's politics."
  6. I haven't read any other articles on this issue on my own, but I know that there must be as many articles written by liberals to defend Onishi as articles written by racist Japanese conservatives to attack Onishi. For it's just impossible for such a great journalist that there are only naysayers and detractors. There must be many supporters and defenders of Onishi as well.
  7. Yet, this Wikipedia article deliberately ignores reference to those numerous defenses written by liberal Onishi supporters and only introduce malicious articles written by Japanese conservatives crawling from "the black van." Therefore, it lacks "balance."
  8. To improve the balance, let's get rid of the mention of Onishi's Korean heritage because it's a rather trivial accusation from the racist Japanese conservatives.
Your reasoning above is dependent on many unsourced assumptions and conjectures such as that "judging people by association or by race is ridiculously racist but it's sadly commonplace in Japan," which is itself a borderline racial stereotype without sources. Without reliable sources to back up all the assumptions, it's got no valid point whatsoever. Therefore, your edit is not acceptable. --Saintjust 00:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Galaksiafervojo and I have debated with you for weeks while giving you the courtesy of refraining from edits if you disagreed waiting for a consensus. This recent edit was made only after this discussion section ran its course without objection from you for 5 days. You only added your comments after the edits were made and even that was at my behest.

Please reciprocate the good faith and courtesy that Galaksiafervojo and I extended to you and refrain from making unilateral edits. Your unilateral edits are in violation WP:EW. Both Galaksiafervojo and I have expressed our disagreement with you so let's not degenerate into a revert war. And instead of responding to you own version of my arguments, please calm down and read my previous posts and respond to what I actually wrote. I never made any of the arguments that your claiming I made 1-7. That's why your responses to your own made-up arguments make no sense. As for your continued citations and sources, I've already given you my response. If you don't think that's fair or unreasonable, please follow crimsone's suggestions.

I'll be more than glad to respond if you want to discuss the arguments that were actually given by Galaksiafervojo and I in this section.Melonbarmonster 04:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing well-sourced text that has been here for months without presenting a single source to back up the removal. You have failed to present any sources even after numerous requests to do so from me. Your argument has already been thoroughly refuted above, for most of all the sheer lack of realiable sources. POV edits without sources are not tolerated on Wikipedia, period. Your opinion doesn't count without reliable sources. Either provide sources to back up your edits, or give up on removing it. You've got no case without sources. --Saintjust 04:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Obviously that's your opinion. I've answered your posts in spite of your citation demands to ridiculous claims I never made. No matter how right you think you are, there are two other editors who disagree with you. Ignoring two other disagreeing editors and making punitive reverts are in violation of WP:EW. As I've stated, we've given you the courtesy of seeking consensus before editing even though we sharply disagreed with you. Just because you think you're right doesn't give you the right to violation wiki rules and make unilateral edits. I'm not going to engage in a revert war with you but I would like to ask that you restore the article to the last state of consensus and try to resolve this through the discussion page.Melonbarmonster 05:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
You are the one trying to make a new change to the text of this article that has been here for months. It's your burden to provide a sound rational for the change with reliable sources and achieve consensus for it first before making the change actually. Your unsourced argument for this change, however, has already been refuted above, and you started making the controversial change to the article once you realized that you have no chance to establish your point because you have no source to back it up. You've got no point if you've got no source. Simple as that. Either respond to my request for sources, or stop vandalizing this article. --Saintjust 05:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You really seem to think you're right. However, there are two people who disagree with you. You are not the arbitrator here so please don't make unilateral edits just because you think you refuted my arguments in your judgment. I've refrained from reverting your edit because I don't want to engage in an edit war in violation of WP:EW. Please reciprocate the good faith and return the article to the last state of consensus.

We made the edits only after I opened up this section on January 1st and no objections were raised by your nor anyone else for 6 days. You didn't respond until 6 days later only after the edits were already made. Come on man, let's discuss substantive issues and not play around with edits. As I've suggested to you already, bring in an arbitrator if you feel like this isn't going anywhere instead of making the edits on your own in spite of two other editors who disagree with you.

Let me say one thing about your repeated accusation that I have no references. Do you not realize that you haven't offered any citations for your arguments either? In fact, my arguments are as referenced as yours because we're both using existing references. The existence of those references are not in dispute and yet you seem to think that these sources somehow supports only your view. Furthermore, the edits that moved this controversial section to the footnotes were made unilaterally by random editor without discussing it in this talk page. Since you feel so strongly about sources and you haven't offered any for your arguments, I don't see why you keep on making these unilateral edits. Galaksiafervojo and I waited for a week for you or anyone else to raise objections. Please reciprocate the courtesy and respect that we showed you.

I also need to warn you that accusing me of vandalism is a violation of WP:Attack. I have been discussing these issues with you in good faith and yet you've made unilateral edits in spite of no one agreeing with you. I've nonetheless refrained from reverting your edits in accordance with WP:EW. I've shown you the courtesy of continuing this discussion with you with civility. I find your accusation of my edits being vandalism to be inflammatory, insulting and a personal attack. Please remove your accusation. Further actions according to WP:attack will be taken if you do not stop.Melonbarmonster 04:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The sentence that you keep removing is from an article that was written by Masayuki Takayama, a professor at Teikyo University, and was published in Shukan Shincho.It was written by a notable author and published in a notabl medium. That's called "source." As a matter of fact I have read the entire artcile as well as most of the other Japanese articles that are cited here.
You, on the other hand, have got no source whatsoever. You haven't even read the artcile by Takayama because you cannot read Japanese. You have not read any other articles on this subject, either. Like I have told you numerous times, provide sources or youe unsourced edit can't stay. Without sources it's not even a contest. --Saintjust 04:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
First, you're arguments regarding sources are just incredibly disingenuous which I'll address below. And you've yet to make a single coherent argument that addresses the issue raised by the title and discussion of this section. You've been rebutted and all your complaints have been answered and you've resorted to violating wiki rules and policies and then falling back on repeated and unresponsive arguments rather than keeping the disagreement on this Talk page and waiting for consensus.
The fact of the matter is that no matter how right you think you are, two editors disagree with you. Please revert the article to its last point of consensus. You are not the arbitrator here nor do you have the right to ignore people who disagree with you and make unilateral edits. What's even more galling is that Galaksiafervojo and I refrained from making edits out of courtesy to you when you objected and only went ahead with the edits after a week of open discussion during which you didn't voice any objections. Even when you joined in this discussion AFTER the edit, I've been more than willing to respond but please show some civility and deference to the process and WP:EW policies and revert the article to its last point of consensus. You also made the initial reversion without discussion let alone an attempt to build consensus.
You've also violated WP:Attack by accusing me of vandalism when we're engaged in a genuine disagreement which you haven't removed in spite of my request. If you don't know what vandalism is, please refer to WP:Vand and remove your personal attack.
As for your "sources", I've already responded to your repeated complaints on this issue. If you disagree please give a responsive response instead of ignoring my answers and repeating the same argument over and over again. I'll once again try to extend good faith and respond nonetheless.
You still haven't given any sources of your own. We're both referencing original citations and my arguments are just as referenced as yours. I've stated this before and you've yet to respond to it. I also never stated that the article wasn't written by Takayama, or that I could read Japanese, or that it wasn't published, or any other other strawman claims I've never made. You really seem to not understand or don't care what other people's opinion actually are. We also specifically discussed the substance of these accusations in the way beginning of this talk section to which you gave no response. If there are things that are being lost in translation for those of us who don't read Japanese, you should be happy to make those arguments and make them known as I'd be happy to hear them.
If there are any substantive evidence besides Norimitsu's supposed politics that gives credibility to these accusations of Korean heritage, PLEASE SHARE them. So far, you've claimed you have superior knowlege and credibility because you've read these article when in fact, in all the edits of this article and in all the long-winded discussions that we've had, you've offered NONE. Please share the credible evidence and arguments that hasn't been mentioned yet by the non-japanese editors.Melonbarmonster 07:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy, and unsourced pov-pushing doesn't count. No matter how hard you push your personal opinion, it's not worth consideration as far as it's unsourced. You have not "responded" to anything but only keep stating unsourced personal opinions. You are not in any position to comment on sources that you haven't even read for god's sake. The fact of the matter is that you got zero sources and you haven't read anything on this subject. Please have some courtesy to do at least some reading on the subject before editing the article. That Onishi's politics has anyting to do with the statement is a creation of your imagination and without sources it's utter nonsense. --Saintjust 07:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a statement for someone who's offered no citations himself. You've offered no sources and keep stating I have no sources and zero sources when YOU'VE OFFERED NONE YOURSELF. And you can't just say that I haven't responded to anything as if that some statement of faith. You need to read WP:Ref. If someone here was claiming that Japanese articles claiming or suspecting Norimitsu of being Korean didn't exist, then those original citations would help you even if you didn't offer them yourself. Unfortunately for you no one here has ever claimed such a thing. The fact remains that YOU'VE OFFERED NO CITATIONS OR SOURCES and you've violated WIKI rules and policies with unilateral changes are a violation of WK:ED. You really need to read {{WP:Ref]]. Citations are for the article and not for the talk page for one.

As for having done zero reading in Japanese, this is an English site. You're going to have to deal with the fact that not everyone is going to read Japanese. If you want to associate only with Japanese readers then I suggest you stick with Japanese WIKI. If not, you need to deal with it.

Furthermore, since you've again offered NOTHING SUBSTANTIVE on the issue of Norimitsu's Korean heirtage from these Japanese articles, the rest of us can only assume that there is no substantive evidence or proof besides Norimitsu's perceived politics. Instead of ridiculously telling non-Japanese speakers to read Japanese on an English website, why don't you just share with the rest of us all the superior credible evidence that the rest of us poor non-japanese speakers are ignorant on. Thus far you haven't offered any new credible evidence from these articles and I can only conclude that there aren't any in spite of your pretenses. And please respond to the rest of my last post. You've yet to respond to most of it. If you don't respond or object to arguments given, I can only leave the issue open for rebuttal for a reasonable amount of time before assuming consensus which is what happened last time before your unilateral edit.Melonbarmonster 08:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. The source is already cited in the article: "Takayama, Masayuki (2006-07-13). 変幻自在 207: 似非日本人 146. Shukan Shincho. Retrieved on 2007-01-03."
  2. You are the one making an unsourced claim that Takayama must have written Onishi's Korean heritage because the Japanese people like Takayama are all racists who commonly judge people by race and believe that any criticism of Japan made by the Korean people is not trustworthy due to "anti-Japanese bias." The burden of proof for this blanket generalization about the Japanese people is on you, not me. As a matter of fact I know of no sources that support such a ridiculous conspiracy. It should also be noted that calling the entire population of a nation all racist is itself a highly racist remark. If you claim that it's not some groundless racist nonsense but a solid "fact," and that it should be reflected on this Wikipedia article, then you provide the sources to back it up. As far as you keep it yourself, you are free to conjecture on the motive or agenda or whatever all you want.
  3. This is an article on a Japan-related subject. Wikipedians who edit it are naturally expected to be knowledgeable about Japan as well as Japanese sources esp. when the availability of English sources is limited. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a personal blog site. --Saintjust 08:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You again didn't respond to my requests. If you don't respond I can only assume consensus.

I never claimed Takayama's article wasn't cited in the article and this "japanese conspiracy" blanket statement is a figment of your imagination nor did I call all Japanese racist. You obviously have issues with this but you need to stick with arguments actually made in this section. So where are your citations???

As for those Japanese articles, why don't you just simply tell us what evidence Takayama cites for Norimitsu's Korean heritage since you claim to have them? Galaksiafervojo and I have been already searched for evidence for Norimitsu's supposed KOrean heritage in both English and Japanese sources and we found nothing. You've also offered nothing and you're offering nothing. I actually thought you really did have some evidence from other Japanese sources but by now you've left me wondering if I ended up calling a bluff. So far the ONLY evidence and reason for this accusation given is Norimitsu's perceived politics. If you know more, please share.Melonbarmonster 18:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems an admin made appropriate edits already.Melonbarmonster 21:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
This is what you wrote yourself above:
  • "It's a conservative complaint and a one-sided presentation is inappropriate level of detail in favor of conservative pov."
  • "It makes no sense to add another conservative accusation that's unproven, contentious and based solely on Norimitsu's politics."
  • "Judging people by association or by race is ridiculously racist but it's sadly commonplace in Japan."
  • "An obvious reason why this discredits Norimitsu is bc him being Korean would be enough to prove his perceived anti-japanese bias and lends conservatives reason to justify their claim."
The sentence at issue is a descriptive and neutral one, and hardly controversial in its appearance: "Onishi is also referred to as being a former naturalized Japanese citizen of Korean descent in several articles." Your reasoning for the removal of this sentence is that it's not a simple descriptive statement but a "conservative complaint" and "conservative accusation that's unproven, contentious and based solely on Norimitsu's politics." Why? Because it is intended to "discredit" Onishi, because "him being Korean would be enough to prove his perceived anti-japanese bias and lends conservatives reason to justify their claim" for Takayama, you say. But how do you know if Takayama really wrote Onishi's ethnic heritage for this purpose? Because "Judging people by association or by race is ridiculously racist but it's sadly commonplace in Japan," you say.
Takayama's article simply states that Onishi is of Korean heritage. It talks about naturalized Korean immigrants in the Japanese society, and Onishi is mentioned as one of them. --Saintjust 00:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I just would like to state that your last post doesn't jive with your previous posts.
Why were you attacking me for not having read the articles in Japanese if that's all that Takayama's article states???? We all knew this already. Takayama's article contains NO evidence credible or not. After all this, still the only reason behind this accusation that any of us have so far is Norimitsu's perceived politics. You've offered nothing additional, let alone citations.
And so which of your quotes of my previous comments state that all Japanese were racists, takayama's statement wasn't cited in the article, or that there is a "japanese conspiracy"???
These things make it hard to assume your contributions to be in good faith, e.g., your denial of political context behind Takayama's article.
We've been through all the arguments already and you're not offering anything new. There are 3 editors who disagree with you and yet you continue making unilateral edits and are engaging in reverts in violation of WP:EW. At this point, I'm going to see if any of the other editors will join in the discussion. If we can't reach consensus, we should bring in an arbitrator.Melonbarmonster 01:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
The sentence at issue only says that someone is Korean. It's a simple, factual description of a person's ethnic background. There is nothing controversial about it.
It becomes controversial only because you make it out to be with your wild imagination, only because you read some racist motive or conservative agenda or whatever into it. As far as your guesstimate on the motive is unsourced, it's not worth consideration.
You don't state any "evidence" every time you mention someone's ethnic background unless you are writing a grand biographical piece of the person or something. If someone is being introduced as a Japanese or a Korean or whatever, he is just that. There is no reason to doubt it. No "evidence" is provided for Onishi being Japanese, either. --Saintjust 02:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? You've been complaining for citations for the most inane and irrelevant points and arguments no one's even made for weeks now and now you're copying my argument. Good grief.
Takayama is not stupid. There's no way that he didn't know the political context of his article. You're saying this is a neutral statement and is NPOV. So I'm asking what's the evidence, at least circumstantial evidence, behind this accusation? Norimitsu was known as a Japanese only until conservative accusations about politics arose. So far 4 editors including you have found nothing. Only possible reason we have is Norimitsu's perceived politics. In spite of all your bravado, you've offered NO evidence for this accusation nor have your offered any citations of your own.
Have the decency to reciprocate the courtesy that other editors have extended to you and revert your unilateral edits before we bring in an arbitrator. The other editors have made edits only when consensus was reached and you didn't raise any objections for a week. You are in violation of WP:EW by unilaterally editing and then reverting everyone else's contributions instead of working on consensus on the talk page.Melonbarmonster 17:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Takayama is known for his inflammatory statements and revisionist views by the way. Hardly NPOV.Melonbarmonster 18:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
You've got no source to substantiate your accusation of Takayama's political motive and what not. As far as "inflammatory statements" and biases are concerned, Onishi isn't any better as exemplified by the cited numerous criticisms of him incluing one from the Japanese government. --Saintjust 00:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
That's just hilarious that you'd rant about citations after your backtracking above. Good grief. LIke I said, we'll need to resolve this with an arbitrator if other don't join in the discussion.Melonbarmonster 05:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation format

I cleaned up the citations so they use {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} (except for the first reference, which needs to be more specific than just one date in a specific newspaper). I'm thinking we should go with either the English translation of the title, or just go with the Japanese title. I'm leaning toward just the Japanese title since the only ones who will be reading the Japanese articles are those who can read Japanese. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 160.83.128.131, Stop deleting relevant info

Stop deleting relevant info. Firstly, no source has been provided for the claim that Onishi is the first fluent Japanese-speaking Tokyo bureau chief. Until you will provide some reliable source with citation the sentence should carry the citation-needed warning. Secondly, the sentence "Some non-conservatives in Japan have also criticized Onishi" that you keep deleting is a true statement and without it the following sentences wouldn't make sense. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan is not a conservative critic. Kyoko Nakayama is not a conservative critic. Thomas H. Snitch is not a conservative critic. So stop deleting it. --222.1.41.25 06:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)