Talk:Yukihisa Fujita

message: Can we get better references for this article?  The first two cites are to non-English Web sites.  The part of the idea behind cites is so that readers can click on the link and verify it for themselves.  Most probably won't understand Japanese.  The last two cites are broken links. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better references? 

message: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.  Do we have any such references?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is any number of published and intellectually independent secondary source material on this Member of Parliament. The notion that a member of parliament would not be notable is, in my view, patently absurd. The fact that this material is not written in English does not diminish the notability of this person. It would of course be better to have English sources. WP:NONENG states: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source has been used correctly." WP:SELFPUB is, of course, also relevant in this context. — Cs32en (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "There is any number of published and intellectually independent secondary source material on this Member of Parliament." Where? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't seriously assume that a member of parliament would go unnoticed in the national press, and the local press of his constituency? How do you think he got elected? By hiding away from the press? — Cs32en (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are primary sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I haven't studied them in detail, but I did look at the policies and if this article isn't referenced by published secondary source material which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, I will probably nominate it for deletion.  I'll have to read up on all the pertinent policies.  I'll give you some time to fine some sources, English ones please. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A Quest For Knowledge, an article does not get deleted because of a broken link, and non-english sources are appropriate, and they should even be used in preference to English sources if they are of better quality. To avoid unneccessary bureaucratic procedures, you may ask at the relevant topic boards first, before considering any formal action.  Cs32en  05:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Here is a recent newspaper article about Fujita.  Cs32en  06:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand Japanese.  Do you? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this topic even notable? 

message: There's no need to post individual slander against Mr Fujita from a publication with extensive links to the US government and the CIA themselves. It's vacuous reporting at best. This is not a section where everyone need air their views on Mr Fujita, but of what Fujita believes himself.  Again if you wish to link to anti-truther sentiment then a reference may be made, but the substance of Washington Posts article was nothing but a personal attack on the man himself, and spoke almost nothing (not that it would) against the truth movement, blithely dismissing it without any discourse taking place.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.246.138 (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting Washington Post statements 

message: Link formatting may need to be fixed especially — oi yeah nah mate amazingJUSSO ... [ɡəˈdæɪ̯]! 09:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting issues