Jump to content

Talk:Yohio

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Japanese superstar" mention

[edit]

How can an administrator, User:Bishonen claim that "Unjustifiably negative info [is being] inserted into this bio" when the "info" being referred to is the following text: "In the Swedish press, he has been described as being a "superstar in Japan" - however, it's worth noting that while he has received a small amount of attention in Japan and even once appeared on the popular variety show Waratte Iitomo!, none of his releases have appeared at any position on Japan's Oricon single or album charts." First of all - how is it negative, at all? Saying somebody isn't a superstar in a specific country isn't "unjustifiably negative", it isn't even "negative." He has received some attention in Japan but he's not the superstar (here) that the Swedish press has made him appear. If this reflects negatively on anybody, it's the Swedish press, not Yohio. Secondly, how is it unjustifiable? It's not only true, but also sourced and verifiable. It's also worth pointing out precisely because a lot of people in Sweden do actually believe that Yohio is a superstar in Japan, but this is, as I've mentioned, a misconception. Kiruning (talk) 03:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yohio is broadly touted as being "Big in Japan" in the Swedish press: Dagens Nyheter [1] "Han är stor i Japan, men hemma i Sundsvall vet få vem 17-åriga Yohio är." "Han är 'big in Japan' och kom tvåa i Melodifestivalen, men Yohio nöjer sig inte med musiken." Aftonbladet [2]. If this isn't the case, isn't it worth pointing out? Kiruning (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you're gonna say he has a "career" in Japan, it's def worth qualifying.Kiruning (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kiruning. I'm really sorry I didn't see your post before. If I had, we could have discussed what is and isn't appropriate in a biography of a living person, and you would hopefully not have ended up reinserting the negative material. We don't focus on what people have not done, as that is undue emphasis. The section "Career in Japan" was factual before your insertion, as far as I can see; I don't agree that the mere use of the word "career" calls up a need for "pointing out" that inflated claims have been made elsewhere and refuting them. See also your talkpage. I asked there if you had read the policy on biographies of living people. See how it says among other things: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity." And also"Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid." Please show a high degree of sensitivity. Bishonen | talk 13:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Bishonen, you use very vague and general quotes from the BLP (which I've read, yes) which don't really support your case, yet you are very keen to make it out as if it's not a question of differing opinion, but you being 100% right and me being 100% wrong. I think this is very dishonest. As I've said, how is the material negative? Why should any amount of sensitivity be required when describing how successful somebody has been? Just because it isn't "positive"..? Kiruning (talk) 00:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kiruning, why do you think this is a discussion were anyone has to be 100% right or wrong? This is about not posting negative information about a article subject, and in this case Bishonen is right about not adding the material that you wanted to add. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, the two of you... this was such an unsatisfactory discussion. User:Bishonen especially - shame on you, you're an administrator, are you not? Drop the 上目線 attitude and debate honestly. How is it negative to discuss exactly just how famous somebody is? How is this information sensitive? How is it negative? Kiruning (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An addendum, though I think it's wholly irrelevant to the inclusion, but since BabbaQ brought this up: Yohio himself HAS claimed he is famous in Japan. See this video for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A73gcxz8QDQ Q: "What's it like to be famous in Japan? A: It's strange [...] "
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=1646&artikel=5427703 "I Japan är Yohio känd som artist, medan han i Sverige främst är känd för att han är känd i Japan." In Japan, Yohio is known as an artist, but in Sweden, he is known for being famous in Japan"Kiruning (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again? I'll just remind you that the "superstar in Japan" claim wasn't in the article before you put it there. You added it here, apparently purely in order to be able to state that it's "worth noting" that he has only "received a small amount of attention" in Japan. I agree that it isn't true that he's a superstar in Japan. So don't let's say he is. I've tried several times to explain to you how it violates WP:BLP to introduce an unfounded claim to fame (hype by TV4, I think it was) in order to introduce a detailed rejection of. As for your new YouTube link, nice job there translating the mild expression "känd i Japan" as "famous in Japan". You know what? I'm done here. I'm tired of going in circles with you. You say you've read the BLP policy. Well, I say your insistence on discussing unfounded gossip in a bio article shows you don't understand that policy. Feel free to take this to the BLP noticeboard for more eyes. Bishonen | talk 11:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
"Känd" equals "famous" in any Swedish-English dictionary I can find - what's up with the snideness? Yohio himself, his recording company and several media outlets have referred to him as a superstar. A recent SVT Play show discusses "how famous is he in Japan, really?": Journalist: "There have been some question marks concerning how famous Yohio really is in Japan. Will this show straighten this out?" Producer: "Yes, partly. This was part of what we wanted to explore when we started filming."[3] "Unfounded gossip"? Get real mate. You seem obviously unfit to be an administrator. If you're "done here" and refuse to discuss the editing of the article, I hope you also intend to refrain from editing it! "Let's don't" mate! Kiruning (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

[edit]

BabbaQ's recent revert ([4]) was rash, pointless, stupid (edit: apologies, that was uncivil of me), and unexplained. In this revert he undid at least a month of edits, and

  1. removed several reliable sources
  2. removed info on a fourth music video
  3. reverted the changes to the intro (specifying that Yohio has been talked about for his androgynous look)
  4. flipped the order of "Japanese career" and "Swedish career" while the sources make it abundantly clear that his career in Japan doesn't stretch further than having released a CD, while he's a household name in Sweden,

among other things. The only rationale given was "changing back to neutral version." How is it more neutral? If there's a specific problem you're looking at, change THAT part and don't revert the entirety of the article.Kiruning (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I fail to see how any part of the revert was to a more "neutral" version. Is it somehow biased to point out at which place his album charted in Japan? Is information hurtful to Yohio? Kiruning (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line is, the version you want to have mentioned the Big in Japan claim again. Diminished this singer to some kind of fake singer when in fact the current version hardly mentioned any career in Japan but mostly the one in Sweden. One would think that Kiruning would have realised that the Big in Japan claim should not be a part of the article by now. Considering that the user has tried to have it reinstated in the article almost 10 times, with the end result of reverting and explaining of why it isnt appropriate. Funny enough the only one who seems to be interested in mentioning alot about Yohios Japanese career in the article is Kiruning himself. Enough is enough. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of insults, no actual arguments. Why shouldn't anything about him being "Big in Japan" be mentioned? And if the problem, as you see it, is limited to the "Big in Japan" mention, why didn't you just remove that? Why did you revert every single change I and others have done to the article? Do you have any rationale for this whatsoever?Kiruning (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You say "[the Big in Japan line (?)] Diminished this singer to some kind of fake singer when in fact the current version hardly mentioned any career in Japan but mostly the one in Sweden" - this is a bizarre claim. This is the actual offending phrase: "As Yohio launched his single career, his record company touted him as 'a big success in Japan' and he came to be widely described in Swedish media as being "Big in Japan" - though this was not necessarily entirely true." The line was supported by two reliable sources. Kiruning (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please also clarify exactly what your beef is. Are you saying the line is not factual? Or are you saying it's defaming?Kiruning (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from a user that truly does throw insults around in every comment like yourself Kiruning I take that first comment lightly. Secondly every single edit you made on Yohios article was in purpose to diminish the importance of everything he has accomplished. Perhaps now that basically all your edits on Yohio has been reverted since day 1 not only by me but by other users as well you perhaps should start considering that your edits are not up to par. I would suggest reading a few other articles to see how a Wikipedia article is really made. I might sound hard but I have had enough of your POV-pushing to be frank. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can own up to being insulting, but besides that I ALSO present actual arguments. The fact that my changes have been previously reverted is nothing but ad hominem - you're obviously not addressing me but the third opinion or whomever will eventually review this discussion (I reverted you and Bishonen, you reverted me - I relented, you didn't - so get off your high horse and let's discuss the actual contents of the article. Discuss the edit, not the editor). What is your rationale for removing all other edits made to the article? And how can the "Big in Japan" line be "diminishing" if it's factual? How was every other edit I did to the article "diminishing" of his career?Kiruning (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have tried and tried over and over to explain to you why your edits are inappropriate. You are unwilling to even understand basic Wikipedia guidelines. I will not respond to you any further because frankly I have had enough of your behavior and attitude. if someone else is willing to deal with this then go ahead. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you haven't. The discussion with Bishounen was 1) brief, 2) about a different sets of edits 3) containted pretty much no input from you (except this: [5]). If you want to edit the article, please be prepared to explain your edits.Kiruning (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, you post this on the "requests for page protection" asking for full protection immediately after reverting me with the rationale "for discussion to reach consensus with Kiruning" - but when I ask you to explain your edits, you literally declare that you refuse to discuss the topic with me. This doesn't seem dishonest to you, in the least? Kiruning (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, cool it down folks. This behaviour between the two of you is not cooperative nor is it productive. If both of you are unable to hold a conversation without having to throw insults at each other, then it would be best that you do not speak to each other at all. Stick to the facts, discuss in a civil manner, and most importantly try and avoid going from one editor's talk page to another in order to gather support for one's side of the argument. To say that someone is "Big in Japan" is rather ambiguous. What is "big" to one person, may not be "big" to another. A bit like saying is a glass half-full or half-empty - both are correct. To be honest, I would not have known Yohio was big in Japan, and to my knowledge I would have assumed he is more well-known in Sweden. Unless there is substantive evidence to back-up this "Big in Japan" claim, then we should try and write the information as neutral as possible. By making such a claim we are basically saying that the entire population in Japan knows who Yohio is, where he originates from, and are avid fans of his. I'm a big fan of Sam Bailey, but does that mean the singer is "Big in popularity"? Not necessarily. If we are to say Yohio is big in Japan, then perhaps to state that he is "allegedly big" would be a better choice of phrase? It maintains neutrality but also mentions a verifiable fact. Wes Mᴥuse 21:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kiruning, do you realise quite how negative words like "notoriety" (=infamy) and "touted" are? (Compare our articles Tout and the redirect Notoriety.) They were both introduced by you on 2 December 2013.[6][7] There is no support for them in the sources you give. I'm glad to see you have now, under pressure, removed the sentence about the record company "touting" Yohio as "big in Japan"; I hope your grumbling in the edit summary doesn't mean you'll reintroduce it when we've stopped watching. You had sourced the "touting" to a primary source, a press release from the record company which apparently in your opinion constitutes "touting". Wikipedia articles are supposed to provide reliable secondary sources for all statements, not tell the world what "Wikipedia" (in this case, you, speaking "in Wikipedia's voice") thinks. I won't repeat the links to policies and guidelines I gave you when we had an argument about attacks in this bio in April 2013, as you didn't seem to care for them then.
That said, I agree with you that it's logical to subdivide the "Career" section into "Career in Sweden" and "Career in Japan", even though they might be a little short to be separate sections. Also I'm not sure the three (or four?) music videos don't belong in both places… Anyway, I've suggested a compromise structure. I've also put the "Personal life" information at the beginning of the article, with a new heading. That might not be ideal for most bios, but in this case it simply comes first chronologically (the subject being so young), so I think it makes a better shape. Please check it out, everybody, and feel free to edit. This is just a sketch, and I'm sure it can be improved. If I've lost anything informative, it's not intentional, please fix. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
P.S., @Mouse, thanks for being a calming voice, but "allegedly big"? Please not, that's negative in itself, as well as being shop-worn wikipedia-ese. Let's just keep the "big in Japan" (a phrase with sneering connotations in and of itself, if you check out Google) out of it. I know Kiruning is attached to it, but I don't understand why. There's no neutral way of introducing it, as far as I can see, let alone a sensitive way, as the WP:BLP policy requires. It doesn't belong here. Bishonen | talk 22:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Apologies for any confusion there, Bishonen. I wasn't implying that we should use the phrase "allegedly big". I was merely throwing out ideas in the hope it would spark off inspiration for the above involved editors to club-up better ways of getting around such ambiguous wording. Like I said though, a singer who is big to one person, may not be as big to another. It all boils down to how popular/well-known a celebrity has become. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any better way to say a singer is "big" without using the actual word "big". But with the suggestion that I made, I hope other's may think of a better word to use. Wes Mᴥuse 23:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How to say big without using that word? He's popular, well-known, well-loved, sells lots of records, sells out concerts, etc. That being said, for any of that we'd need a good source saying some version of that, and we apparently do not. LadyofShalott 04:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bishounen, hi, "notoriety" was a very poor choice of words indeed, I must have confused it with "notability". The "touting" did in fact happen and the link I posted is a good example of this, but I must concede there are no reliable sources actually describing it as such so I think you were right to remove it. I haven't dived into the edit summary but at a glance, I think the current state of the page isn't bad. I still think that we should mention how hyped his Japanese career was in Sweden though - it was his entire claim to fame in the beginning, and I think mentioning this is the consensus reached on the Swedish Wiki, where more and more informed editors have contributed to the discussion. I'm not going to risk getting involed in another revert war to have it included though...Kiruning (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

[edit]
Response to third opinion request:
I personally agree with the version of the article before BabbaQ's mass revert (although I think the line "though this was not necessarily entirely true" can be omitted). I really don't see how that version isn't neutral; in fact, BabbaQ, your version seems to be less neutral because for whatever reason, you appear to have a problem with Yokio having a successful career in Sweden. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 18:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erpert, please don't hypothesize on why a certain editor may want to use or avoid a certain phrasing. In this case, there is no reason to believe this editor hates this artist, and the IDONTLIKEIT link is unnecessary anyway. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yohio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2024 updates and edits- looking okay?

[edit]

Hi folks,

Been a long time fan of this fellow and wanted to see his page up to date, so I took it upon myself to make some significant changes. If anyone is still around checking this article I'd love a second pair of eyes as a couple of my sources were definitely less than ideal for the subject matter, and I'm very new to Wikipedia editing so I may have made some mistakes. Please let me know! The spider on the wall (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yohio&oldid=1248855164"