115:
can not find any information about this from NHK, or official notification. My native language is not
English, but I did study English at university and I know it is very good and I can see many sentence problem. Such as the first sentence, it should say "singer and actress" Moreover, I think sentence such as "Her triumph was to be short lived." does not belong in the wikipedia because it is subjective. The words in Korean ancestry are very wrong, such as "matter of dispute" and "assertion" and trying to find information about it is very difficult, with no major sources. The reference of Christine Yano said there was a rumour, which started from a South Korean newspaper reporting on her death; and said she was part Korean. Yano said she does not agree, because there is no evidence. Finding such information from any language is impossible, so I can not understand your edits, or why you say it is well referenced. Especially when the said references say different things, or nothing at all. It is nonsense.
149:
information from the others contradict each other. The two that do mention it come from the same company, with the one that can be easily verified containing subjective writing. Apart from that subject, other claims have no valid reference, or were misleading its reference (such as the awful living national treasure claim) I did look at the talk page, most is people complaining about that one section, and trying to remove it. This starts with a user named "Koreakoreawatch" and looking at this persons contributions, has a very anti-Japanese culture personality who believes
Japanese to be envious of Korean people, and subordinates. This is does not belong on the wikipedia. When looking at the Japanese and Korean sites, I do not see a similar thing.
23:
114:
About other misleading information, this time in favor of her; claims such as "living national treasure" and an annual event by television and radio service on her birthday, and that 10 million people voted her song the "greatest
Japanese song" via national poll. I do not remember such a thing, and I
168:
I'm not sure why you say that you have not been unblocked, since the unblock log clearly shows that you have. I will look into it. Since every project determines its own policies and guidelines, I doubt very much that the verifiability rules are the same here as on
Japanese WP. If you would like to
148:
I have not been unblocked, and yes I do understand the rules about verifiability. I think they would be the same as the
Japanese wikipedia. I provided a good explanation as to why they are not acceptable (including the fact that one doesn't even mention anything it is being referenced for) and the
106:
is being used a lot, including claims of gang-related activity by her brother, and Korean ancestry. However, it mentions no such thing (how is that well referenced?) Another reference says she is
Japanese-Korean, which is contradictory to the wikipedia article. Another reference is not acceptable
110:
is not objective writing, and says most of Japans entertainment industry is Korean. These references do not say she and her parents were Korean with Korean passports. In addition, the counter-claims do not exist. The
Shunkan Bunshun is not an acceptable reference, because it is not possible to
88:. The editor is correct that I know virtually nothing about this person, I was replacing unsatisfactorially explained blanking of well sourced material. However, I will unblock you on condition that you bring your concerns about this material to the talkpage of the article; do you agree? --
76:
The issue is not the changes of sources or the issues you discuss above; these changes I left in the article. The issue is the deletion your deletion of well-sourced, neutral information from multiple sources, including some have questioned her Korean/Japanese ancestry and that others
195:
I doubt very much whether you will get agreement from other editors that information published by multiple mainstream publishing houses (even if two of them do come from the same publishing company, or that you feel one contains subjective writing) are not acceptable as sources (see
111:
verify. The book I read many years ago in university. It has her family tree, which was authorized to printed by her family to show they are of working class people, which is important to her story. There is not a mention about Korean ancestry.
152:
I want you to explain how they are well referenced, as you are clearly the one watching and keeping it in the article. While other people try to remove it. In addition to the other information which is "pro-hibari" that I tried to remove.
102:
However it is not neutral information. I wrote directly to you, because you add the information to the article. There is a strong subjective "for" and "against" about Hibari in the article, and it does not belong. This source
104:
220:
Whether she is of
Japanese or Korean extraction is neither pro and anti Hibari. The fact is that people have claimed both things and the article on her has been the subject of strong
224:
in both directions. Since the article doesn't come down one way or the other but only mentions that this is a disputed topic, then that should help to diffuse the issue.
207:
As I have mentioned before, non-web references are fine for
English WP; you may have to go the library to check a book or two if you want to verify material. See
227:
You having seen her family tree is interesting, but as we don't consider editors to be a reliable source, including this information would be original research.
185:. I think this is especially important as two other editors have commented that you do not fully seem to understand the rules that must guide our edits here.
245:
I have checked the block and you are not blocked nor autoblocked. Please try again to edit other pages and let me know if it doesn't work. --
190:
Articles here do not attempt to mirror articles on other WP websites when there are reliable sources given. To answer your specific points:
254:
240:
162:
124:
97:
71:
49:
37:
169:
edit here without difficulty and frustration, I strongly suggest that you read the the policies here, including
217:
You repeatedly claim that the
Anderson book doesn't mention her Korean ancestry, but in fact it does on p. 324.
59:
200:. Having read this, if you you want to argue this point, I suggest that you make your case at the
154:
116:
108:
182:
221:
201:
178:
212:
197:
174:
138:
250:
236:
93:
67:
45:
208:
134:
55:
32:
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Knowledge (XXG), you
54:
The material you delete is very well referenced. Please check what WP considers
22:
246:
232:
89:
63:
41:
133:
ecWhile it seems that you don't perfectly understand the rules here about
107:(The Straits Times) because it is not possible to verify. The reference
231:
Please let's continue this discussion on the talkpage of the article --
62:. You will be blocked if you continue this kind of editing.--
198:
our guideline on reliable sources for further information
170:
188:
186:
86:
84:
82:
80:
78:
8:
30:you will receive for your disruptive edits.
7:
14:
21:
1:
202:reliable sources noticeboard
270:
255:22:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
241:22:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
163:17:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
125:16:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
98:14:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
72:13:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
50:12:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
158:
120:
222:point of view pushing
183:neutral point of view
179:no original research
261:
175:reliable sources
143:
142:
139:reliable sources
25:
269:
268:
264:
263:
262:
260:
259:
258:
40:from editing.
19:
12:
11:
5:
267:
265:
229:
228:
225:
218:
215:
205:
192:
191:
147:
145:
144:
129:
31:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
266:
257:
256:
252:
248:
243:
242:
238:
234:
226:
223:
219:
216:
214:
210:
206:
203:
199:
194:
193:
189:
187:
184:
180:
176:
172:
171:verifiability
167:
166:
165:
164:
160:
156:
150:
140:
136:
135:verifiability
132:
131:
130:
127:
126:
122:
118:
112:
109:
105:
100:
99:
95:
91:
87:
85:
83:
81:
79:
74:
73:
69:
65:
61:
57:
56:verifiability
52:
51:
47:
43:
39:
35:
29:
24:
16:
244:
230:
151:
146:
128:
113:
101:
75:
60:WP:Vandalism
53:
33:
28:last warning
27:
26:This is the
20:
77:disagree.
17:June 2009
38:blocked
213:WP:RS
155:中村ヒトミ
117:中村ヒトミ
251:talk
247:Slp1
237:talk
233:Slp1
209:WP:V
159:talk
121:talk
94:talk
90:Slp1
68:talk
64:Slp1
58:and
46:talk
42:Slp1
34:will
141:or
36:be
253:)
239:)
211:;
181:;
177:;
173:;
161:)
137:,
123:)
96:)
70:)
48:)
249:(
235:(
204:.
157:(
119:(
92:(
66:(
44:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
