This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not sure crunchyroll is the best source. Can we get any more reputable news sites reporting on this? Crunchy cites http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/20171121-OYT1T50067.html so if we could get a rough translation of this article from Japanese it could be helpful. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 22:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Replaced the source with Japan times, which is far more reliable.-- 157.107.29.44 ( talk) 02:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
He was NOT arrested. It was "書類送検", which is different from arrest.-- 157.107.29.44 ( talk) 07:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
First, there is a wikipedia policy "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. " /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper
Individual incident like this should not be emphasized and must be treated equally as other info, so do not put it in the lead which covers only general info. You must follow the wikipedia policy.
Next, "Charge" is 起訴 and "arrest" is 逮捕, and no Japanese media reported he got 起訴 or 逮捕. Japanese media only reported he got "書類送検", which means "being referd to prosecutors". So English media reporting "charged" or "arrested" mistranslated Japanese articles. So far, Japan times is the only English media which translated correctly, so do not use other English sources.-- 157.107.29.44 ( talk) 03:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC) How does including the fact in the lead section count as emphasizing said information? The lead is supposed to summarize most of the important information in an article- it’s meant to be for someone who wants a general summary of the information below but doesn’t want to read through an entire article of facts to find certain information. I’d say that alleged possession of child porn seems to be pretty important information (especially if it’s a current event), and I really don’t see how including a single sentence mentioning it in the lead section is putting emphasis on the information. The article on Louis C. K. mentions his recent sexual misconduct allegations, and that isn’t considered emphasis on certain information, so why would this be any different?? TheDisneyGamer ( talk) 04:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place to report news but an encyclopedia. The lead section is supposed to cover general info, not individual events. And emphasizing a particular event is against wikipedia policy. Do not consider other articles are perfect. You can remove redundant lines to improve articles.-- 157.107.29.44 ( talk) 05:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.The entire point of the lead is to repeat important parts of articles. Feeling skeptical about motive for wanting the crime to not be in lead. 104.232.119.107 ( talk) 21:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
His arrest has already been mentioned in the "career section". Stop duplicating the same info.-- 121.1.207.242 ( talk) 17:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Watsuki's 2017 charges have nothing to do with Rurouni Kenshin other than halting it as a consequence for his crimes. The arrest info should be moved to "Personal Life." lullabying ( talk) 19:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
It has influenced his career so should be mentioned in the career section.-- 121.1.207.242 ( talk) 09:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with his career, unless his crimes were done in a professional context. It is a personal matter. -- 187.161.144.23 ( talk) 01:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Please let's drop the edit war to reach a consensus about the organization of this article. Tintor2 ( talk) 13:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Most articles reported the incident together with the hiatus and the resumption of the Hokkaido arc. Clearly about his career.-- 14.3.176.123 ( talk) 03:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should Watsuki's 2017 arrest info be separated into a different section apart from the "Career" section? lullabying ( talk) 03:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Additional comments: Articles mention that his works were put on hiatus following his arrest, but the cause of his arrest was unrelated to his career. Articles: 1, 2. 3 lullabying ( talk) 03:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Additional comments: Correction: Watsuki was not arrested, but simply charged. lullabying ( talk) 10:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Additional comments: This would be put in a section aptly titled Personal life or something related; it can also include information about his marriage. lullabying ( talk) 16:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I have already proved that
The current version is perfectly fine.-- 14.3.115.230 ( talk) 04:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The point is Lullabying has not provided any valid reason why you want to change the current version. All you have provided is "the cause is not related to his career" and "we are not required to follow the Japanese version" which is of course not a valid reason but just your personal desire. The result is related to his career. And that we are not required to follow the Japanese version does not mean we need to take a different layout.
Again, I have already proved that
The current version is perfectly fine.
And stop claiming "other editors are opposed to your opinion." Polls are generally not used for article development. Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes", most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion.
-- 122.249.134.98 ( talk) 23:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The incident is
It is extremely clear that mentioning them together in the career section is much more natural than separating the info. The current version is perfectly fine-- 122.249.134.98 ( talk) 07:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
There appears to be an attempt to whitewash the child pornography charges. There is no personal section, where this should be, but it's included in his career. I would advocate that the section head remain; without it, it gets buried at the end of a wall of text regarding the minutiae of his work history. I also note the consensus above which states it should be in a subsection. Ifnord ( talk) 13:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
At first I thought in a similar way. Once I read the discussion, I support the claim Wikipedia is not a place to exaggerate a single particular event. It seems the author was not even arrested, and he only got fined $2000. Other articles such as Roberto Firmino, Hugo Lloris, Yaya Touré do not exaggerate a similar event. The event has something to do with his latest work, and the Japanese article also mentions the event in the career section. And vote count is not consensus. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion.-- イケメン大富豪 ( talk) 06:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I read the earlier closed discussion, and while I like that the "Career" section is broken into two parts for readability, I still feel that the non-career aspect of his crimes are important. Like, keeping that subheading in "career" is fine, but certain personal stuff, like him admitting an attraction to elementary and secondary school girls, or how his fine has been reacted to by japanese shounen jump fans (NOT just western fanbases) and how his mentored now-friends didn't really react could be in the "personal life" section too.
I just think that "early life" is kind of restrictive whereas with "personal life" we could continue to add on when it comes to the human aspect of his situation. AnotherToast ( talk) 08:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
He was fined money for having teen modeling videos of underage girls in private residences, it had nothing to do with pornography. The law was created in 2014 to match up with the rest of the worlds child protection laws.
It's common knowledge girls there above the age of 12 used to be in model videos. They're considered pornography because the girls are teens and they are enticing, it has nothing to do with what Americans think of pornographic material, it's closer to swim wear advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.64.41 ( talk) 23:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Ok, but could you just write gravure modeling instead of "naked girls," they're naked, but they aren't actually depicted in the films themselves naked from the point of view of the camera. The fact that I have to point out you shouldn't say 'naked girls' when discussing underage women is concerning... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.64.41 ( talk) 04:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Someone off camera being naked is completely different than saying a video with a naked girl, if someone off camera being naked is considered pornography then almost every single modeling event, swim suit event ever is pornography because off camera they're naked. Saying they're "scantily clad," is correct, saying he had videos of naked girls is biased and disrespectful to asian culture, they censor everything over there and have a lot less sex crimes in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.64.41 ( talk) 20:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
who cares if it was only a fine, it was a RIDICULOUS amount of CP. It's been off the page for like 6 months. 2600:6C67:4A3F:6864:4418:171:317F:2598 ( talk) 18:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.Given how serious of a controversy this is, I feel like it should be mentioned in the lead. 104.232.119.107 ( talk) 21:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm not sure crunchyroll is the best source. Can we get any more reputable news sites reporting on this? Crunchy cites http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/20171121-OYT1T50067.html so if we could get a rough translation of this article from Japanese it could be helpful. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 22:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Replaced the source with Japan times, which is far more reliable.-- 157.107.29.44 ( talk) 02:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
He was NOT arrested. It was "書類送検", which is different from arrest.-- 157.107.29.44 ( talk) 07:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
First, there is a wikipedia policy "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. " /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper
Individual incident like this should not be emphasized and must be treated equally as other info, so do not put it in the lead which covers only general info. You must follow the wikipedia policy.
Next, "Charge" is 起訴 and "arrest" is 逮捕, and no Japanese media reported he got 起訴 or 逮捕. Japanese media only reported he got "書類送検", which means "being referd to prosecutors". So English media reporting "charged" or "arrested" mistranslated Japanese articles. So far, Japan times is the only English media which translated correctly, so do not use other English sources.-- 157.107.29.44 ( talk) 03:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC) How does including the fact in the lead section count as emphasizing said information? The lead is supposed to summarize most of the important information in an article- it’s meant to be for someone who wants a general summary of the information below but doesn’t want to read through an entire article of facts to find certain information. I’d say that alleged possession of child porn seems to be pretty important information (especially if it’s a current event), and I really don’t see how including a single sentence mentioning it in the lead section is putting emphasis on the information. The article on Louis C. K. mentions his recent sexual misconduct allegations, and that isn’t considered emphasis on certain information, so why would this be any different?? TheDisneyGamer ( talk) 04:13, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place to report news but an encyclopedia. The lead section is supposed to cover general info, not individual events. And emphasizing a particular event is against wikipedia policy. Do not consider other articles are perfect. You can remove redundant lines to improve articles.-- 157.107.29.44 ( talk) 05:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.The entire point of the lead is to repeat important parts of articles. Feeling skeptical about motive for wanting the crime to not be in lead. 104.232.119.107 ( talk) 21:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
His arrest has already been mentioned in the "career section". Stop duplicating the same info.-- 121.1.207.242 ( talk) 17:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Watsuki's 2017 charges have nothing to do with Rurouni Kenshin other than halting it as a consequence for his crimes. The arrest info should be moved to "Personal Life." lullabying ( talk) 19:28, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
It has influenced his career so should be mentioned in the career section.-- 121.1.207.242 ( talk) 09:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with his career, unless his crimes were done in a professional context. It is a personal matter. -- 187.161.144.23 ( talk) 01:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Please let's drop the edit war to reach a consensus about the organization of this article. Tintor2 ( talk) 13:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Most articles reported the incident together with the hiatus and the resumption of the Hokkaido arc. Clearly about his career.-- 14.3.176.123 ( talk) 03:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should Watsuki's 2017 arrest info be separated into a different section apart from the "Career" section? lullabying ( talk) 03:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Additional comments: Articles mention that his works were put on hiatus following his arrest, but the cause of his arrest was unrelated to his career. Articles: 1, 2. 3 lullabying ( talk) 03:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Additional comments: Correction: Watsuki was not arrested, but simply charged. lullabying ( talk) 10:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Additional comments: This would be put in a section aptly titled Personal life or something related; it can also include information about his marriage. lullabying ( talk) 16:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I have already proved that
The current version is perfectly fine.-- 14.3.115.230 ( talk) 04:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The point is Lullabying has not provided any valid reason why you want to change the current version. All you have provided is "the cause is not related to his career" and "we are not required to follow the Japanese version" which is of course not a valid reason but just your personal desire. The result is related to his career. And that we are not required to follow the Japanese version does not mean we need to take a different layout.
Again, I have already proved that
The current version is perfectly fine.
And stop claiming "other editors are opposed to your opinion." Polls are generally not used for article development. Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes", most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion.
-- 122.249.134.98 ( talk) 23:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The incident is
It is extremely clear that mentioning them together in the career section is much more natural than separating the info. The current version is perfectly fine-- 122.249.134.98 ( talk) 07:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
There appears to be an attempt to whitewash the child pornography charges. There is no personal section, where this should be, but it's included in his career. I would advocate that the section head remain; without it, it gets buried at the end of a wall of text regarding the minutiae of his work history. I also note the consensus above which states it should be in a subsection. Ifnord ( talk) 13:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
At first I thought in a similar way. Once I read the discussion, I support the claim Wikipedia is not a place to exaggerate a single particular event. It seems the author was not even arrested, and he only got fined $2000. Other articles such as Roberto Firmino, Hugo Lloris, Yaya Touré do not exaggerate a similar event. The event has something to do with his latest work, and the Japanese article also mentions the event in the career section. And vote count is not consensus. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion.-- イケメン大富豪 ( talk) 06:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I read the earlier closed discussion, and while I like that the "Career" section is broken into two parts for readability, I still feel that the non-career aspect of his crimes are important. Like, keeping that subheading in "career" is fine, but certain personal stuff, like him admitting an attraction to elementary and secondary school girls, or how his fine has been reacted to by japanese shounen jump fans (NOT just western fanbases) and how his mentored now-friends didn't really react could be in the "personal life" section too.
I just think that "early life" is kind of restrictive whereas with "personal life" we could continue to add on when it comes to the human aspect of his situation. AnotherToast ( talk) 08:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
He was fined money for having teen modeling videos of underage girls in private residences, it had nothing to do with pornography. The law was created in 2014 to match up with the rest of the worlds child protection laws.
It's common knowledge girls there above the age of 12 used to be in model videos. They're considered pornography because the girls are teens and they are enticing, it has nothing to do with what Americans think of pornographic material, it's closer to swim wear advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.64.41 ( talk) 23:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Ok, but could you just write gravure modeling instead of "naked girls," they're naked, but they aren't actually depicted in the films themselves naked from the point of view of the camera. The fact that I have to point out you shouldn't say 'naked girls' when discussing underage women is concerning... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.64.41 ( talk) 04:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Someone off camera being naked is completely different than saying a video with a naked girl, if someone off camera being naked is considered pornography then almost every single modeling event, swim suit event ever is pornography because off camera they're naked. Saying they're "scantily clad," is correct, saying he had videos of naked girls is biased and disrespectful to asian culture, they censor everything over there and have a lot less sex crimes in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.64.41 ( talk) 20:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
who cares if it was only a fine, it was a RIDICULOUS amount of CP. It's been off the page for like 6 months. 2600:6C67:4A3F:6864:4418:171:317F:2598 ( talk) 18:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.Given how serious of a controversy this is, I feel like it should be mentioned in the lead. 104.232.119.107 ( talk) 21:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)