Talk:Naomi Osaka/Archive 1

Archive 1

Naomi Osaka's whole name is in Hiragana.

Someone please fix it. Thank you. オ坂 なおみ This is the correct spelling. CTRLmyself (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The first character in this comment is a false friend, and the current page is correct that it is 大 and not 才 which is never read as "Oo". Either way, I think this comment has been completely addressed by now. Not sure what the policy on Wikipedia is for cleaning up old addressed talk threads (or the ten thousand redundant ones that follow below, for that matter). 96.41.225.223 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Archive them.Tvx1 23:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Opening sentence

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.

---

Saying that Osaka is "a Japanese tennis player who represents Japan" is plain silly! Even "a tennis player who represents Japan" is silly. Biographical articles on WP traditionally give the person's ethnicity/nationality/citizenship in the first sentence. Osaka has Japanese and Haitian ethnicity and is an American citizen. This is all in the article and it is all sourced. Therefore we should follow convention and call her a Japanese-Haitian-American tennis player in the first sentence. Scolaire (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree. As far as I can tell, WP articles list the "sporting nationality" of athletes, unless there's a mismatch - and if there is, it's generally fleshed out in a different section. For example, Federer's intro doesn't mention that he is of South African descent, nor Djokovic saying that he is of Montenegrin/Croat descent. Osaka is Japanese born, of Japanese descent, and represents Japan - there's no disjointment. And her ethnicity and residency are clarified in a later section. Your intro is way more convoluted than necessary.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"American" was first added on 18 March. Since then there have been 88 intermediate revisions by 41 users. "Haitian" was first added in January 2015. Since then there have been 367 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users. Yours are the only edits to remove "Haitian" and "American". Nobody else finds it "convoluted". There is a clear consensus for keeping it. Please do not edit-war to restore your version until you establish a consensus for it here on the talk page. Scolaire (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Refer to MOS:BLPLEAD - Context - "This will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, ... Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." The only nationality relevant to Osaka as an athlete is Japan, ethnicity (Haitian) and residence (American) are secondary. They are both expanded in the personal life section. Secondly, I am not the only one to play around with her intro, you seem to be the one of the few restoring it. And third, there is a clear consensus for how these intros work, else we'd end up with Federer "the Swiss-German-Afrikaner tennis player", Novak Djokovic "the Serbian-Croatian-Montenegrin tennis player," or Ethan Ampadu "the Welsh-Irish-Ghanaian-English footballer". I have found a reference for keeping my format, if you can find opposing evidence, then you may dispute it or start a consensus yourself.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the comparisons with Federer, Djokovic or Ampadu are good ones. It's not a question of "descent". Osaka has lived in the US since the age of three. She has US citizenship. She speaks English with an American accent. On the other hand, she has spent little time in Japan, and has only poor Japanese, so "born in Japan and plays for Japan, therefore Japanese" is not by any means a good summary of her nationality. She herself lays emphasis on all three of her nationalities, as can be seen in this interview (at 1:26). For BLPLEAD purposes, I would say that her multi-national background definitely is relevant to her notability. It is talked about in nearly all the news stories about her. Scolaire (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Rather than go to WP:3O, I am pinging editors who have had a major input into this article, and who have edited it this year: Fyunck(click), GAThrawnIGF, Wolbo, Ytfc23, OVVL, NewYorkYankeesVersusNewYorkMets09281999, Xperiaray610, GeneM18, Ausmor627, Brentbaxter. What do you think the first sentence should say? Scolaire (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• My thoughts are this is like Maria Sharapova and it should be short and simple in the lead. Naomi Osaka is a Japanese professional tennis player. The main body can go into detail about her parentage, etc.. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• Garbiñe Muguruza is described as being Spanish-Venezualan. I suppose either Japanese-Haitian or just Japanese is acceptable. Ausmor627(click) (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• I only edit the ranking of the player. I leave the biographical details to the pros, so I won't be of much help. Sorry! GAThrawnIGF (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

That was a somewhat underwhelming response. It does appear, though, that contributors to the talk page are not greatly in favour of Japanese-Haitian or Japanese-Haitian-American. At least we can point to this discussion if people change it in future. However, I still think "a Japanese player who plays for Japan" is silly. I am inclined to follow Ethan Ampadu, "a professional footballer who plays for English club Chelsea and the Welsh national team", and take "Japanese" out of the first sentence. Scolaire (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

How can she be Japanese-American if her father is Haitian and her mother is Japanese?

168.243.226.20 (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Father studied in US. Herself raised in JP, USA. 178.132.29.134 (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

If her father is Haitian. It should be written as Haitian-Japanese. That's what it look like this morning. Why the sudden change?

I agree why the sudden change. This should be corrected or I think it will have an impact on wikipedia credibility.. Po joseph (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It didn't suddenly change. As another already said: For years this article simply said Japanese tennis player, along with her sister Mari Osaka. It was briefly changed during the tournament before it was reverted. Someone is spreading misinformation, intentionally or unintentionally. Vivexdino (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Still, she IS half Haitian, and should be noted as such. She is not Japanese only; she is a Japanese-Haitian American. Cwashi3324 (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed this should be updated to mention her Haitian ethnicity Nfaustin (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

lineage has historically been traced paternally, hemse she is Hatian-Japanese American. Not Japanese-Haitian American or simply American. To remove her paternal heritage is an obvious slight and inaccuracy. This compounded by the fact that her page has been locked and is uneditable. Her Black Heritage, which she openly claims and often corrects those who overlook or attempt to dismiss should not be augmented or erased. This error should be corrected immediately.

In closing, Naomi Osaka herself has stated the following...

"In racially homogeneous Japan, Osaka is considered hāfu, which is Japanese for biracial.[10] Her Japanese grandfather was furious when he found out that her mother was romantically involved with a black man. As a result of the interracial relationship, her mother did not have contact with her family for over ten years.[8] In a 2016 interview, Osaka said: "When I go to Japan, people are confused. From my name, they don’t expect to see a (black girl)."[11]"

Black people have not attempted to erase her Japanese heritage and the Japanese should not attempt to erase her Haitian/Black heritage. If it wasn't for both her Black Father and Japanese mother she would not exist to represent Japan.

She is "hāfu" honor it! In the opening lines of her page, not in the subtext. WebEpic (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you just ignoring the discussions below? Welcome back to Wikipedia after 5 years and 2 edits. Vivexdino (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2018

Change

> Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997)[4] is a Haitian-Japanese professional tennis player. On July 23, 2018, Osaka reached her best singles ranking of world No. 17. She was the first  Haitian-Japanese woman to reach and win a final of a Grand Slam, defeating Serena Williams at the 2018 US Open.

to

> Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997)[4] is a Haitian-Japanese professional tennis player. On July 23, 2018, Osaka reached her best singles ranking of world No. 17. She was the first Haitian-Japanese woman to reach and win a final of a Grand Slam, defeating Serena Williams at the 2018 US Open. Plgeorges (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done She is Japanese, period. She also has United States citizenship, but she lists herself and is registered as Japanese. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Last night on tv she herself indentified herself as Haitian so stop being a racist and leave it her bio!! TheReelBlackSheep (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It already is in her bio... Where did you come from? Vivexdino (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2018

Remove "Williams went on to congratulate Osaka while giving her a hug, and told the audience to stop booing because of their anger against the umpire and to focus on congratulating Naomi.[27]" as it is irrelevant to the preceding and succeeding sentences stating Naomi Osaka won the 2018 US Open. Butko0 (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It is not irrelevant that is an important moment and shows sportsmanship between the women.Mcelite (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

 DoneI actually think it is trivial and should be removed. This is not Serena Williams article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Eventually it will be removed, as will the full thank you speech. Those are beyond trivial to this article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm willing to settle for mentioning that Serena congratulated her we can keep out the extra Serena hugged her and told the audience to stop booing. I believe that is relevant because it shows their sportsmanship and Naomi has looked up to Serena.Mcelite (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

But that always happens. When doesn't an opponent congratulate the winner? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click) and Mcelite: As of now, the last paragraph of § 2018: Indian Wells and US Open Champion reads, in full (emphasis added):

She defeated her idol Serena Williams in straight sets to claim the trophy. During the award ceremony, as the crowd was booing, Osaka stated, "I know that everyone was cheering for her and I'm sorry it had to end like this. I just want to say thank you for watching the match. It was always my dream to play Serena in the US Open finals so I'm really glad I was able to do that. Thank you."

As far as I understand what happened, the booing, and the hooraw that prompted it, followed directly on the referee's action against Williams, her furious ranting at him, and his docking her one game, which cost her the match. Those details are seriously notable. If we're going to keep that quote, we must explain why the crowd was booing. Readers will be seriously confused: "Who were they booing? Why were they booing? Did they think Osaka had cheated or had not earned the win?" I'm reopening the request until this issue is addressed. --Thnidu (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Without the crowd coming here to answer for their actions, I don't see an actionable request. For an explanation of why crowds act the way they do, may I suggest Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds as offering some plausible reasons.  spintendo  05:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2018

Naomi Osaka is a Haitian-Japanese tennis player 2600:8806:1100:10A0:E5C0:BACB:2C63:2702 (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

No, she's not. She has Haitian ethnicity. Nice try though. Vivexdino (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done She is a Japanese tennis player who happens to have some Haitian blood. She is also a United States citizen and lives and was raised in the United States. It would actually be more appropriate to call her a Japanese-American tennis player, but she is registered as Japanese with the governing bodies of tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"She is a Japanese tennis player who happens to have some Haitian blood". It is your point of view which if far from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Tennisexpertise (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You're always going to be able to find some sources which say she is japanese-haitian. But I think most will say she is Japanese or represents Japan. She is registered as such with the ITF. Mentioning her parentage in her personal sections is fine and dandy. Most players have that. I'm half Polish but I'm not a Polish-American software engineer just because of that. She was born in Japan and raised in the United States since she was a toddler but she has chosen to go with Japan as her tennis nation. That's what should be in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Cześć. "I think most will say she is Japanese or represents Japan". Since when it is important what most people say in defining someone's biography and not who says it based on relevant sources? Wikipeadia is based on sources and not on "what most people will say" or like to see on wikipedia. Instead of just giving your POV, show sources which clearly state that her Haitian background is irrelevant. You will not find any, because there are important sources quoted in this thread which show that her Haitian background is relevant in her whole life and achievements. Tennisexpertise (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This is an issue of WP:Due and undue weight. The vast majority of sources simply say Japanese, or Japan. Which is what she is representing officially and is listed as. Her Haitian background is already mentioned in the article. You are the one pushing ethnocentric edits here. Vivexdino (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Throwing insults clearly shows that you don't have sources to base your POV opinions. Please educate yourself before throwing accusations: ethnocentric - preferring a particular race or culture to all others (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ethnocentric) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennisexpertise (talk • contribs) 22:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Ebony magazine (title: "Tell ‘Em! Tennis Player Checks Reporter for Neglecting to Mention Her Haitian Heritage", January 22, 2018): "Naomi has been very public with her Haitian background, and is also very active at the school her parents built in the city of Jacmel" (https://www.ebony.com/news-views/naomi-osaka-haitian-australian-open) Tennisexpertise (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Someone is editing this section to specifically target Tennisexpertise (talk) by striking out his answers in a thoughtful and deliberate debate. I have restored his answers. Please stop attempting to destroy other points of view because you're too vested in your own narrowed one. You are being watched. shiznaw (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems these comments were struck out because the user was found out to be a sockpuppet.Tvx1 00:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly why. And it's good to know Shiznaw is on the job looking out for people, or "watching" as they call it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:05, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2018

Naomi is a Haitian-Japanese professional tennis player. Aafc1228 (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

She is indeed. Keep in mind, though, that Wikipedia is not a forum and do not abuse the edit request template. Vivexdino (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2018

Naomi Osaki is the first Haitian-Japanese player too win the grand slam titled. StJamesProject (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done That's cool and everything, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum. If you have a suggested edit to make, please gain WP:Consensus. Vivexdino (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2018

Add that she is Haitian as well as Japanese. Cathrinwitt (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Against consensus. Welcome back to wikipedia after 9 years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2018

Change 'Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997) is a professional tennis player representing Japan.' to 'Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997) is a Haitian-Japanese professional tennis player representing Japan.'

Such a change would keep the emphasis on her Haitian heritage along with her Japanese heritage that she both embraces. https://haitiantimes.com/2018/09/09/3-things-to-know-about-naomi-osaka/ JWalton314 (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Take this argument to the Representing Haiti section. Not here.Mcelite (talk) 05:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done no consensus for change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2018

Original bio read "Naomi Osaka is a Haitian-Japanese professional tennis player". Changing it to "Japanese" only may have removed the Haitian history of the girl. Please correct. Kcemenike (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done No consensus, plus it is correct as is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2018

Change " is a professional tennis player of Japanese and Haitian heritage, representing Japan" to "is a professional tennis player from Japan, of Japanese and Haitian heritage"

Also why have you mentioned her father being Haitian twice under Personal and Family? "and a Haitian father, Leonard "San" François..... Her father was born in Haiti and went to New York University before moving to Japan, where he met and married her mother"

"Osaka has been described as Japanese, American, Japanese-American, American-Japanese, Haitian-American, and Haitian-American-Japanese." is unnecessary. BookWord1 (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2018

Naomi Osaka is a Haitian-Japanese professional tennis player. 67.81.171.71 (talk) 16:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2018

Miss Osaka is of Haitian AND Japanese decent. You had that on your site until the day she won the US OPEN. That should be restored 2601:640:4080:5710:80C1:E866:F30B:AEEF (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please feel free to join the discussion further up the page in the Representing Haiti section. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2018

Naomi Osaka is a Japanese Haitian - American professional tennis player representing Japan. She is the first tennis player born in Japan to win a Grand Slam singles tournament, defeating Serena Williams in the final of the 2018 US Open.

Thank you! 170.74.231.21 (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please feel free to join the discussion further up the page in the Representing Haiti section. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2018

Score Digme724 (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Unknown what is wanted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2018

Naomi Osaka is a Haitian-Japanese tennis player 148.75.220.142 (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done See the talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2018

2600:8807:280:703:10DC:78AE:7F2C:DE93 (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

She is Haitian- Japanese residing in America. She never represented Japan

 Not done See the talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

You’re wrong as well. She has represented Japan in the Fed Cup.Tvx1 23:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2018

Naomi Osaka is a Haitian-Japanese professional tennis player. 2604:2000:C519:2F00:9191:4E4A:9EA:68F6 (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done This is not an edit request. Please gain consensus for any changes you want done. Vivexdino (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2018

The Japanese script of Osaka's name must be changed because her first name Naomi is not a native Japanese name. Instead, because the name Naomi is originally Hebrew, her name should be changed from "なおみ" to "ナオミ". See here for a link to an article from a native Japanese site that uses Katakana to write her name: https://mainichi.jp/articles/20180909/k00/00e/050/210000c. 2600:1700:EC90:F9F0:249A:5D67:D823:C5D5 (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm this request? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - the Japanese Wikipedia (who should know) render her name as 大坂 なおみ. Fish+Karate 09:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2018

Change Naomi Osaka is a Japanese-American tennis player to-

Naomi Osaka is a Haitian-Japanese professional tennis player. 12.44.44.11 (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done It doesn't say that, so not done. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2018

indicate that Naomi is Haitian-Japanese, as was previously the case. Charlietian19 (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done It was not the previous case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Should be noted that when the page was first created, her Haitian heritage was cited directly in the opening, making it true that it was "previously the case." Eganist (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2018

Her identity as a "Haitian-Japanese professional tennis player" was included before she won the U.S. open and should still be included. Just modify the first sentence to read "Naomi Osaka is a Haitian-Japanese professional tennis player representing Japan." 141.216.60.190 (talk) 12:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done That was a fabrication put out by twitter, instagram, and probably others by now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2018

Naomi Osaka is a Haitian-Japanese Professional Tennis player. 131.239.18.4 (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done same continuing reasons. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2018

She is Haitian and Japanese. She is Japanese, Haitian, American. in that order. Because, she was born in Japan. Her Father is Black (Haitian) she now resides in America. Before she won the championship this is what you said. Now she is just Japanese after her winning. Wikipedia is full of it. Please don't deny her African/Haitian Heritage. This is very racist. Thank you. Reebee77 (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done That was a fabrication put out on twitter and instagram. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2018

Please change

"Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997)[5] is a professional tennis player who represents Japan. She is the first player of that nation to win a Grand Slam singles tournament, defeating Serena Williams in the final of the 2018 US Open.[6]"

to

"Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997)[5] is a Haitian-Japanese professional tennis player who represents Japan. She is the first player of that nation to win a Grand Slam singles tournament, defeating Serena Williams in the final of the 2018 US Open.[6]"

Reason:

Before she won the Grand Slam singles tournament, this opening sentence stated that she is Haitian-Japanese. After she won, this was changed. There is no good reason for this change, and it is more informative to leave it as it was. Ydryer (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

That was a fabrication put out on twitter and instagram. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2018

Please change Naomi Osaka is a professional Tennis player representing Japan to Naomi Osaka is a Haitian-Japanese professional tennis player because you are completely erasing the Black part of who she is and spreading false information. 2600:6C65:767F:CC11:D9B6:8540:AC7B:B19 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done That was a fabrication put out on twitter and instagram. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Can we somehow prevent edit requests being made? This is getting ridiculous.Tvx1 21:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what can be done to a talk page, but it'll sure be nice when this whole ball of wax is archived. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 September 2018

Specify her background, as it was originally mentioned on her page: Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997)[5] is a Haitian-Japanese professional tennis player, who represents Japan internationally. 5.51.91.124 (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Please stop making edit requests when many similar ones have been denied. This is becoming disruptive. Her background IS already specified where that is appropriate. A Wikipedia article consists of more than a lead sentence.Tvx1 22:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 September 2018

Change this: Naomi Osaka: WTA Tennis is a Japanese professional tennis player.

to this: Naomi Osaka: WTA Tennis is a Haitian-Japanese professional tennis player. 67.80.165.115 (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Read the previous discussions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 September 2018

Change "Naomi Osaka is a Japanese professional tennis player" to "Naomi Osaka is a Haitian-Japanese professional tennis player." Supersoldierskywalker (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done See previous discussions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Japanese expatriate sportspeople in the United States?

She is listed under the category "Japanese expatriate sportspeople in the United States". She has U.S. citizenship though so she's not an expatriate in the U.S. She should probably be removed from the category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.51.115.45 (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Whether a person gains citizenship has no bearing on their listing as an expatriate of the former country. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect -- if you drill down thru the template layers it says expatriates are citizens of a country other than the one where they reside. Since she was naturalized long ago she has citizenship in the United States as well as Japan, so she is not an expatriate. I'll remove the category. I will look for a category about the dual citizenship, though am doubtful that there would be one for something like that. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

p.s. There is no category of People with dual citizenship, but I found a couple tags (at Jim Carrey) about emigrants Markbassett (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Why Did This Article Change

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.

---

I read this wiki article the day before the Us Open. It stated that she was Haitian-Japanese in the first paragraph. Now it only says that she is Japanese. Why would this information change?

I too want to know why her bio was changed and her Haitian heritage removed from the 1st sentence? Your racism is showing. She identifies as a Haitian-Japanese person, so at a minimum, respect how she identifies herself and use the same choice! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4F03:20B3:D165:DEC0:1D2B:C796 (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't. You were directed here by a falsehood. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Representing Haiti

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.

---

Her father is Haitian and her mother Japanese. I sincerely feel that it should be said that she "Haitian - Japanese" and not just Japanese. I believe that both cultures are something to be proud about! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M&M.plt (talk • contribs) 22:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure they are something to be proud of, but she's registered in tennis as Japanese. In the early life section it already mentions her father is Haitian. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2018

Hi please correct the article on Naomi Osaka. It should state that she is a Haitian Japanese tennis player, this article does not include her Haitian ethnicity at the beginning of the article. Thank you. Dimes25 (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See previous discussions further up the page. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 02:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Which nationality you are does not depend on which citizenship you have. Here she is talking about representing Haiti: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NAuI3mn7Dc

Washington Post (September 2018) quotes her: "Japanese culture? I love everything about it. . . . America, I live here. I train in Florida. . . . And Haiti, if you’ve ever met a Haitian person, they are really positive, and literally if you’re friends with them, then they will do anything for you. That’s something that is a really good trait, and I’m really happy that my grandparents and my dad’s side of the family is like that" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/tennis/with-energy-of-a-new-yorker-japans-naomi-osaka-reaches-us-open-semifinals/2018/09/05/9e3e7034-b12e-11e8-9a6a-565d92a3585d_story.html?utm_term=.fbbf4843280b).

So writing that she is just Japanese-American while neglecting Haitian is biased. This wikipedia article has a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view ("All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. ") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennisexpertise (talk • contribs) 04:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Washington Post (September 8, 2018): "Osaka, who is of Haitian-Japanese descent and was raised in the United States but plays for Japan" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/tennis/naomi-osaka-upsets-serena-williams-who-received-game-penalty-to-win-2018-us-open/2018/09/08/089e1df4-b39f-11e8-aed9-001309990777_story.html?utm_term=.526ad7dadf9b)
• Boston Globe (September 09, 2018): "The biggest issue for Williams on the scoreboard Saturday was that she was outplayed by a younger version of herself in Osaka, a 20-year-old of Haitian-Japanese ancestry who was raised in the United States but plays for Japan and who idolizes the 36-year-old American." (https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2018/09/08/serena-williams-pays-dearly-losing-open-championship-naomi-osaka/V0Ltaws8TNV7q6ctvfL7gI/story.html)
• Sky Sports (18/03/18): "The Haitian-Japanese had beaten Maria Sharapova and world No 1 Simona Halep this week" (http://www.skysports.com/tennis/news/12110/11295691/naomi-osaka-defeats-daria-kasatkina-to-win-wta-bnp-paribas-open-title-at-indian-wells)
• Tennis World USA (March 10, 2018): "It was a show for everyone when the 20-year-old Haitian/Japanese and the 30-year old Russian came together in their first time meeting." (https://www.tennisworldusa.org/tennis/news/Tennis_Stories/52663/the-naomi-osaka-victorymaria-sharapova-struggles-go-on/)
• Tennis.com (March 08, 2018): "The Haitian-Japanese star openly idolizes Williams." (http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2018/03/maria-sharapova-naomi-osaka-indian-wells-bnp-paribas-open-2018/72586/)
• WTA Tennis: ""I feel honoured (that I'm compared to Williams)," the Haitian-Japanese said, with a smile." (http://www.wtatennis.com/news/daily-insider-who-next-li-na)

--Tennisexpertise (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• W Magazine [an American fashion magazine published by Condé Nast](September 9, 2018): "Despite Naomi Osaka becoming the first Haitian-Japanese woman to win the U.S. Open championship yesterday, the mood in the tennis world was far from celebratory." (https://www.wmagazine.com/story/serena-williams-naomi-osaka-controversy-celebrities-twitter)
• Huffington Post (09/08/2018): "She's the first Haitian-Japanese player and first player representing Japan, male or female, ever to win a Grand Slam." (https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/09/08/naomi-osaka-us-open-victory_a_23521230/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_cs=5h2Mw9ypK-4l_fDos74XEA)
• Reuters (January 19, 2017): "While the obvious talent Haitian-Japanese Osaka showed on court indicates that more experience can only keep her on the rise from her current ranking of number 48 in the world, Konta is on a sharper trajectory." (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tennis-open-konta-idUSKBN1530QS)
• The Guardian (9 Sep 2018): "You have only to watch the US Open press conference footage – highlighted by the director Ava DuVernay – when yet another journalist asked Osaka to explain her Haitian-Japanese heritage, to be reminded of how women of colour have to justify their existence in the sport. “OK, I feel like every single time …” says Osaka, wearily, before proceeding to relay the genealogical and geographical facts of her life again." (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/sep/09/serena-williams-again-bears-brunt-double-standards-tennis)
• Eurosport (18/03/2018): "The unseeded Haitian-Japanese player became the youngest Indian Wells champion since Ana Ivanovic was victorious a decade ago." (https://www.eurosport.com/tennis/osaka-dominates-kasatkina-for-career-first-title_sto6682346/story.shtml)

-- Tennisexpertise (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Considering we just had 3 brand new users M&M.plt, Dimes25, and now you, all asking the exact same thing makes me pause to wonder if we are dealing with three people or one. If it is the same person please be advised that Wikipedia frowns GREATLY on multiple accounts used in this manner. It is already mentioned that she is from a Haitian background. But she is of Japanese nationality with United States citizenship. Also please do not keep making new topics for the same thing. Other editors will find this topic and weigh in over the next week or so. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's useful to start throwing around insinuations of sockpuppetry just because more than one user happens to disagree with you. "Haitian-Japanese" was already in use in the first sentence in early March this year, and the sentence was edited back and forth many times during the Indian Wells tournament and in the weeks after. I opened a thread on it here on the talk page in April, but there wasn't much participation, despite the amount of changing going on in the article. So there is a "consensus" version but obviously a lot of people disagree with it, and now they are saying it on the talk page, with citations to back their version up. You need to take that on board, and maybe open an RfC. Scolaire (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It makes me very nervous when it's 3 brand new accounts just created today, all demanding the same exact thing. My spider-sense goes off. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Nevertheless, assume good faith is a policy. It is natural for new users to want to edit an article related to a current event, especially when it is a question of ethnicity, something so significant that major news media have it in their headlines. Especially when the page is semi-protected – newbies obviously see that and think they ought to register. Accusations of sockpuppetry are not a valid argument and don't strengthen your case. Scolaire (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually I have shown good faith. I keep answering all the queries as if they are legit. But if you think I'm not going to mention suspicious things (which these are), then you will continue to be disappointed in some of my posts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

And also the fact that the user automatically created a random user-page and is only interested in this article. Obviously doesn't strike me as a new user. Vivexdino (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Washington Post and Boston Globe use the most appropriate, concise and neutral introduction which includes all the necessary information and would please everyone, so using their style it would be: "Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997) is a professional tennis player of Haitian-Japanese descent who was raised in the United States but plays for Japan".Tennisexpertise (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

We don't mention descent in the lead, only nationality. She is not a Haitian national. Vivexdino (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Where is it written that information about a person's background (which in this case is a defining factor of who the person is) should not be mentioned in the lead?

• Youtube video "Naomi Osaka answers: How Haitian and Japanese culture made her who she is today": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkX0bjOyNME ("My dad is Haitian. I grew up in a Haitian household in New York, I lived with my grandma, and my mom is Japanese and I grew up with the Japanese culture too, and if you are saying American I guess because I have lived in America I also have that too")
• NZ Herald (New Zealand, 2 Jan, 2017): "Osaka has one of the most unlikely backgrounds on tour. She was born in Japan, raised in the United States and has been strongly influenced by Haitian culture, as her father is from the small Caribbean Island. "I guess it's an interesting mix," said Osaka. "I grew up with a mix of Japanese and Haitian culture, but we were living in New York. Every day was interesting. My grandma and father would speak Creole, my mum would cook Japanese food."" (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11775544)

-- Tennisexpertise (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

True, but off-topic. She's not a Haitian citizen. Simple. As. That. Race/ethnicity belongs in the background, not the lead. Vivexdino (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read wiki policy about lead section before commenting and lecturing other people on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Lead_section Tennisexpertise (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You've obviously misunderstood the guideline. And I see you've also now been blocked as a sock. Vivexdino (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I made this edit which I still think was a good edit, but that edit has been undone. Bus stop (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I like this suggestion by Tennisexpertise. I think the number of replies above likely has to do with recent attention drawn to Naomi Osaka by press coverage of the US Open controversy. I also think that claiming Naomi Osaka is simply "Japanese" as a person based on her athletic affiliation is a bit rude. If there were a woman born and raised in Croatia with European ancestry who went to Japan to train in tennis as an adult, fell in love with the county, and consequentially decided to rep Japan, would we be calling her simply "Japanese" in the first sentence? I don't want to be inflammatory but I think Naomi Osaka's name is biasing her treatment here. 96.41.225.223 (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

And shes lived her whole life in the United States and has US citizenship. So is she a United States/Haitian/Japanese tennis player? Her dad was born in Haiti but is he 100% Haitian? This could be argued back and forth depending on a lot of minutia details but she certainly represents Japan and is registered with the governing body of tennis as representing Japan. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

And it could be said the same thing about your treatment of her based on looks. Vivexdino (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Citizenship is generally clearly defined by governments and the fact of having dual citizenship is I think noteworthy-enough for the lede. Bus stop (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

She’s Haitian-Japanese, please correct the page. LMacTheGr8 (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Now 4 brand new accounts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@LMacTheGr8, have you not been paying attention to anything so far, or are you just choosing to be willfully be ignorant? Vivexdino (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Vivexdino: seeing it's his/her first and only edit, he/she probably just didn't look to see if there was a prior discussion. Comment on content, not on contributors. Scolaire (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

This whole thread is filled with first and only edits. It's becoming an epidemic. Now we have TruthandLight6, Aafc1228, TheReelBlackSheep, and more to add to the list. Accounts created today. And they have migrated to her sister's bio. All it takes is one look from an administrator to verify if any or all are the same person and the factory would be closed, so I hope it's worth it. I've refrained from calling it to administration but if this continues too long I will. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicity and race do not go into the head paragraph. It stating Japanese would be accurate because she is a Japanese citizen if I'm reading the sources correctly otherwise it would be that she's an American tennis player that represents her mother's home country of Japan.Mcelite (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Where is it stated that important information about a person's background is excluded from the head paragraph? As others have pointed out in this thread, for a long time in the head paragraph there was an information "Haitian-Japanese". Only now, when Naomi Osaka gaind worldwide attention and fame it became a problem? Tennisexpertise (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It is wiki policy that the head paragraph does not include ethnicity. Her ethnicity is explicitly cited in her early life section where it should be. No one is denying that she is half Haitian.Mcelite (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

"unless it is relevant to the subject's notability". Wiki policy clearly states: "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Lead_section). And in this case it is relevant to subject's notability: 1) She herself puts equal importance on her Haitian as well Japanese background. 2) Her Haitian father has been a defining factor in her achievements (see for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72Gq5OChj_o) 3) She is considered by a great number of Haitian people as one of their own (see for example a tweet by Wyclef Jean from 9 September 2018: "Naomi OSAKA Japonese Haitian blood What I have been doing with my microphone You are now making HAITI Proud with your tennis racket", https://twitter.com/wyclef/status/1038844533667246081) Tennisexpertise (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It is not relevant to her notability. She is notable for playing tennis and now for winning a Major. She happens to play for Japan. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It is your POV. Show sources which say it is not relevant to her notability. Tennisexpertise (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I see. So you are saying that she is notable to wikipedia because her father lived in Haiti? Not because of her tennis? Dream on. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you understand English and what you are writing? Sorry but all the sources here are in English. Tennisexpertise (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

i don't think anyone is arguing that Osaka is notable because of her father's nationality; i don't think anyone would interpret this guideline that way. but Osaka's ethnicity is pertinent to her notability because her ethnicity is a subject of discussion in the US and Japan. there is a whole NYT article about how Osaka's biracial status "is helping to challenge Japan’s longstanding sense of racial purity and cultural identity". i would say having a NYT article (among others) written about the fact that you are biracial makes it pretty notable, and important for a reader's understanding of her role in the world of Japanese athletics. Boomur [☎] 01:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

For example, Henry Ossawa Tanner's page rightfully mentions his ethnicity in the first sentence because, among the many painters of history, he is notable for being the first African-American painter to achieve international fame. Naomi Osaka is not merely one of many [insert ethnicity] to do [some thing famously]. She is the first, and that's usually considered notable. 96.41.225.223 (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It needs to be what makes her notable. Unless it is as important as Jack Johnson (boxer), it does not belong in the lead. Her ethnicity does not make her notable here.

Not even Martin Luther King has his ethnicity anywhere in the lead, which is much more important to him. So definitely doesn't belong here where it doesn't matter at all. Vivexdino (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

again, i do not know how you could interpret the guideline as meaning that a person needs to be notable based solely on their ethnicity in order for it to be mentioned in the lead. i cannot think of a single person who fits that criterion; by your logic the guideline is nonsense. also, here and elsewhere you've brought up other individuals with notable ethnicities that go unmentioned in their leads, but those individuals are not the topic of this discussion. "x page does it this way, so this page must follow" is not a sufficient argument for establishing consensus. Boomur [☎] 13:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It is part of wiki policy. You need to mention why her ethnicity is important, the way Jack Johnson (boxer) does. This has been discussed extensively. Vivexdino (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

are you denying that the importance of her ethnicity has been asserted by the NYT article about it, or the Washington Post article mentioned further down this thread? Boomur [☎] 15:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to include it, you need to write why it makes it notable. How many times does this need to be repeated? Vivexdino (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

She is the first Japanese and Haitian Tennis player to win a Grand Slam singles tournament, defeating Serena Williams in the final of the 2018 US Open.[5] Osaka has reached a career-high world ranking of No. 7. 2601:643:8200:9999:E4FB:1E1E:2C48:6F96 (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Unknown what is wanted here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Yesterday here on Wikipedia it stated she was a Haitian-Japanese tennis player. Now that she's famous Wikipedia has edited out her Haitian heritage!! Stating that she's only Japanese. Stop trying to filter out black greatness. You can't stop us!!! TheReelBlackSheep (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any suggested edit to make? This has been extensively discussed over and over again. She has Haitian ethnicity. Anything new? Vivexdino (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

And the day before it didn't so what's your point? Goodness, talk about racial bias. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why this is still an issue. A ton of users believe that her Haitian half should be mentioned. Why? Because its notable. They've provided sources as to how her ancestry is notable in regards to her position as a tennis player representing Japan. Her biracial makeup is an ongoing discussion in Japan in regards to societal acceptance of "hafus". That by itself makes this the exception to the rule of ethnicity generally not being included in the lead. The word 'generally' as a qualifier in this rule means exceptions can be made. Like the example of Henry Ossawa Tanner or Jero. Ms Osaka's country representation in sports (pushed by her father) was for financial reasons (JTA was more promising than USTA). Ms Osaka herself clearly identifies as both proudly Japanese and Haitian and has corrected media when her ancestry/heritage isn't properly referenced. Furthermore, her formative years were in the US with her Haitian relatives. I've made a couple of good faith edits which I've believed accurately represented Ms Osaka only to be repeatedly undone. Illogical if you ask me. Ghostreconnaissance (talk) 02:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Her Haitian heritage is acknowledged and noted in her article. However, she is not a Haitian citizen and she is representing Japan.Mcelite (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Your reply shows that you're either not comprehending the point so many users are trying to make or you're willfully ignoring it. The issue is whether or not her ethnicity is notable enough to warrant being mentioned in the lead, not if its mentioned in the article itself. The latter is a given. The former seems to be a hot button. Those in favor including myself believe it does and have expressed why. Wikipedia specifically states the parameters for having certain contextual info in leads. I believe this case fits that bill. I've yet to hear a convincing counterpoint other than her not being a Haitian citizen which is irrelevant to the original point in the first place. Everyone knows she represents Japan, literally no one is disputing that. Ghostreconnaissance (talk) 04:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not what your edits are showing. What exactly are you trying to add to the lead? Do you have any specific sentence or paragraph in mind that makes her ethnicity more notable than the likes of Harriet Tubman, Jessica Jung, Ryan Higa, or Denzel Washington? Please enlighten us. Vivexdino (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It is notable that she is representing Japan because that is whom she chose to represent her mother's country. Therefore yes that is more notable than mentioning her heritage in the lead paragraph. Yes she has acknowledged her Haitian heritage, however at the same time she represents Japan. In no way is her Haitian heritage ignored. Peace outMcelite (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Another problem is sourcing. The press is all over the map on this. While it looks like Japanese is the most prevalent, she has been described as a tennis player as Japanese, Japanese-American, American-Japanese, Haitian-Japanese, Hatian-American-Japanese and even Haitiano-Japanese in some Haiti press. Her father is often called Haitian-American. He was born in Haiti but do we know if he is 100% Haitian himself? It is a stew and in my opinion more trouble than it's worth in the lead. The way it is written now "Naomi Osaka is a professional tennis player representing Japan" is accurate and doesn't cause any problems that will lead to alphabet soup edit wars. I will change the second sentence to a non-inflammatory version also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

"but do we know if he is 100% Haitian himself". This sentence just shows that you don't have idea what is being discussed here and are here on this page just for trolling and have an agenda. Or maybe you can't even read simple English with understanding? All the issues (Haiti, Japan, American) are important in her life and career and neglecting it violates NPOV: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Wikipedia's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles, and, because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three. This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view). "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if the person is notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Lead_section). Somebody stated there "unless it is relevant to the subject's notability" not just for fun, but for that kind of complicated biographical issues, where genealogy of the subject is discussed extensively in many articles about her and there is a lot of confusion and bias in the media towards stating that only Japan/being Japanese is relevant to her notability (see youtube video: "Naomi Osaka's Blackness ERASED by Media US Open 2018", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72Gq5OChj_o). Tennisexpertise (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• I don't condone all the socking that's going on here, but I do note that The Washington Post is running a headline today, Japanese, Haitian, and now a Grand Slam winner: Naomi Osaka’s historic journey to the U.S. Open. So I don't think mentioning the dual ethnicity in the article is unreasonable. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
• Her heritage is getting coverage meaningfully related to her notability, in addition to the sources quoted above, we have the New York Times stating "Her victory sparked celebrations across the country and, because she is half Haitian-American, started challenging Japan’s conservative pure-blood definition of ethnicity.". [1] Such comments are numerous and appear signficant, and I lean toward including a mention of her ethnicity as a result. --joe decker^talk 19:51, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Joe Decker: I'm a bit confused here. It is included extensively in her personal section so no one is arguing that. The question is about the lead. Various sources call her Japanese, Japanese-American, American-Haitian-Japanese, Haitian-Japanese... it's all over the map. That's pertinent for her personal section but not for the lead. We also have this article and [this. What to put in the lead is going to be very tough to source. I do think it best to keep it to her personal section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The thing is, it already included her ethnicity. What kind of mention did you have in mind about including, exactly? Vivexdino (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I meant in the lead. Sorry for any confusion. It is my judgment that the coverage I have seen of her ethnicity, and how that is being received in Japan and elsewhere is broad enough to warrant it. *shrug* --joe decker^talk 19:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion that we should include that she is "Haitian-Japanese". I think that it is not enough to just say that her father is Haitian. Bus stop (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I still think mentioning that she's Haitian in the lead paragraph isn't notable. She is Japan's first champion that's notable besides here winning her Grand Slam at the age of 20. I feel this whole thing has been blow up even more by one editor making ghost accountants on a mission because they believe her Haitian heritage is being denied when it isn't. If it was being denied it wouldn't even be mentioned in the article. That's what I'm seeing here.Mcelite (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I find aspects of ethnicity as well as aspects of citizenship of importance. And I think it is simple enough to state these. For instance Osaka is of Haitian-Japanese ethnicity and she holds dual US-Japanese citizenship. That is a very short sentence. I don't think this should be an issue. These are related concerns (ethnicity and citizenship) and a brief sentence is all it takes to clarify this for the reader. Bus stop (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

No one is saying not to mention her ethnicity. In fact I included all the terms used to describe her in her personal section. But the lead section seems out of place for it, especially since the exact phrasing is different depending on the source. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

You refer to "exact phrasing" but aren't we often paraphrasing? Are there significant differences in the wording found in different sources? Bus stop (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

As to whether she is Japanese, Japanese-American, Haitian-Japanese, or Haitian-American-Japanese... yes that's significant. And that's best handled under her personal section where we can go into more details on the situation. It's really not best for the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It is still an issue because of the widespread discussion on social media about the blatant racism on Wikipedia that has removed her Haitian heritage to make her appear Asian instead. She wins, and now she is no longer African American? Obviously editors here have little sensitivity to issues of culture and ethnicity. And the argument that that info belongs in another paragraph is no excuse. Google Osaka's own comments on this issue to educate yourselves! Judeberman (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

We follow what the sources say, not social media. You're the one making this about race. Vivexdino (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Vivexdino, I find it disingenuous for you to act like an unbiased party when your contribution history shows a clear bias towards all things Japanese. I think that her Haitian heritage is notable and belongs in the lead because it is central to her personal identity. It seems that some here simply want to minimize the part of Osaka's heritage that they find less palatable. Ropo153 (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Have you not been following the discussion at all so far? What does me being an anime fan and editing Japanese culture got to do with anything? So you're just gonna call me a weaboo and not follow Wikipedia guidelines? Vivexdino (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I didn't call you a weeboo, I don't believe in disparaging people for their personal interests. I just find it hypocritical for you to accuse someone else of having bias when I doubt you would have had any interest in this article if it were not for the subject's Japanese heritage. Ropo153 (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not accuse anyone of having bias. You are seeing things that aren't there. Vivexdino (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Judeberman and Tennisexpertise this isn't about racism at all. Since she is an American citizen then yes she can be categorized as African American if she wasn't an American citizen then NO. I'm beginning to believe both of you are supporters of the One Drop Rule which is a problem. I'm concerned that if things were reversed and her Japanese heritage was the focus of this discussion instead of her Haitian heritage that you wouldn't be going to war and screaming racism. She is representing Japan not Haiti and not the U.S. so no I don't believe her heritage should be mentioned in the lead paragraph. She is obviously proud of being half Haitian, but at the same time I'm not in strong favor of her heritage being the focus in the lead paragraph.Mcelite (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Mcelite, we're not talking about one drop here, were talking about HALF of her heritage. I haven't seen a single person object to including her Japanese heritage so your argument is just a straw man. Ropo153 (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

One Drop Rule just in case you're not American and don't get it. Obviously you didn't read that I'm concerned that if her Japanese heritage was the discussion some of ones screaming racism wouldn't be interested in this conversation.Mcelite (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

As a biracial American I am more than familiar with the one drop rule, thank you. I read your concern but I've seen no evidence of anybody suggesting that her Japanese heritage be omitted from the the lead, so I think your argument is a straw man. However, because you brought it up: since you don't you care if her Haitian heritage is removed, how are you any better than someone who wouldn't care if her Japanese heritage was removed? Ropo153 (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

We need some sort of clear proposal here, because at the moment it’s a complete mess to see what this discussion is trying to achieve.Tvx1 01:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Ropo153 I think this is where things are getting lost her heritage is not in the lead. Her citizenship is in the lead because it is notable especially because she is the first Japanese player to win at the U.S. Open. Her heritage itself isn't what's major. I would never support her heritage being removed from the article.Mcelite (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

They don't have an exact proposal on what to put. Vivexdino (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion aside, I must say I find the unfounded sockpuppet accusation absolutely hilarious. Thanks guys. Its good to know that users such as myself get scarlet lettered for showing interest in particular articles and attempting to engage in discourse. Ghostreconnaissance (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually administration confirmed a banned sockpuppet, but many brand new editors came here from an incorrect twitter and instagram post. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I am referring to the accusation levied against me. Its completely unfounded. But I digress so that I don't derail this talkpage. We can discuss this accusation further on the "investigation" talkpage if you so wish. Ghostreconnaissance (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I understand, no problem. I think that investigation stems from many of my own suspicions. A couple were sockpuppets, but we found out later that many brand new users were directed here by lies put out on twitter and instagram. You may have just been caught in the rush. Sorry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Note - I posted on that investigation and let them know that some out-of-context inflammatory twitter and instagram postings are the likely reason that we have a stampede of single-post brand new editors to this article. I hope that will help. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Observation - What may have to happen is after the die-down of the twitter/instagram falsehood fades away, since nothing serious can be done with that around our necks, we'll have to have a pow-wow on the best language to use in the lead. For years this article simply said Japanese tennis player, but in the last year it has flipped-flopped to many different incarnations. Right now we are having to remove Japanese-American, Haitian-Japanese, Haitian-American-Japanese, different orders, you name it. It's not like any of the changes are wrong, but everyone wants something different, and the sources don't help much because they are all different too. It's a royal headache. The lead is pretty generic and safe as it stands today but for all I know its final resting place could be a professional Haitian-Japanese-American tennis player who represents Japan, or it could stay as is and we let the personal section explain the details. I don't know, but I do know we can't do anything in the atmosphere created by the directed social media accounts. Luckily at wikipedia we can wait it out and then do our best to arrive at a good fit for the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe the lead paragraph is fine it's neutral it's specifically stating that she is a Japanese citizen representing Japan. I think too many people assumed the sentences were referring to her race, and not her nationality. The way it is written should help calm down those that believed her Haitian heritage was being ignored.Mcelite (talk) 21:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems like the amount of newly-created, single-edit accounts are dying down. Her sister's page isn't getting as much action, either. Vivexdino (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I hope so, but I just got one on my own talk page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Sources / Coverage 2018.09

• "Naomi Osaka’s Breakthrough Game : The 20-year-old is poised to burst into the top tier of women’s tennis. Can she also burst Japan’s expectations of what it means to be Japanese?" https://nyti.ms/2BFe4eB -- with a lot of content on her early life. --178.132.29.134 (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Japanese family

Her Japanese family has been in the Japanese news with this win, so expansion can be done to add family details. -- 65.94.42.168 (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Using the fact that she's listed with the IPA as playing for Japan shouldn't negate her complicated Biography

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.

---

Tennisexpertise (talk) has given numerous examples and cited sources in which She refers to herself as a Hatian and living a significant part of her formative years in America. This has to be addressed in the 1st paragraph with objectivity, not with a biased view against having a complicated life history for the sake of simplicity. The world is becoming ever more complicated. We'll have to keep up in order to remain relevant.shiznaw (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

i mentioned this in a thread above, but as Tennisexpertise mentioned, MOS:LEADBIO states "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." i would argue that Osaka's haitian ethnicity/biracial identity is relevant to her notability; there is a New York Times article how Osaka "is helping to challenge Japan’s longstanding sense of racial purity and cultural identity". it was also enough to warrant a section in the Indian Express article about her win, and a Sydney Herald article. it seems clear to me that her ethnicity is highly notable in context, and of enough interest to a general audience that it would deserve a mention in the lead. Boomur [☎] 01:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, with how much has gone on about this topic, and given how hostile some of the threads above have gotten, maybe this should go to some kind of dispute resolution. There's basically 5 posts from Tennis and 5 posts from Fyunck saying the same thing while the rest of us are being accused of being Tennis's sockpuppets. 96.41.225.223 (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Her ethnicity/race is an important part of her, sure, but that's not why she is WP:NOTABLE, her tennis career is. For example, the African-American ethnicity of Harriet Tubman, the Korean ethnicity of Jessica Jung, or the Japanese ethnicity of Ryan Higa, is an even more important part of them, but it's not mentioned anywhere in their leads. If her ethnicity needs to be mentioned, it should be in a separate paragraph or sentence explaining why, not as part of her nationality/citizenship. Vivexdino (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Weak oppose I don't know if I agree with using why to undermine the mention of her heritage and nationality here considering, as Boomur indicated, MOS:LEADBIO specifically indicates the importance of relevance ("unless it is relevant to the subject's notability."). But even then, I'll make the argument that her representation of Japan, by that same token, isn't WP:NOTABLE either. It's either/or: if we're claiming her representation of Japan as WP:NOTABLE, then the many equal references to her Haitian heritage e.g. Washington Post among others listed above equally indicate that her Haitian heritage is a factor contributing to her notability. I don't mind being corrected; I just don't see how one can be excluded while still noting the other. Eganist (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Her representing Japan is notable for the same reason Serena Williams representing the U.S. is notable. Vivexdino (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. As I was writing my comment below, someone again removed the reference to Osaka’s Haitian background. I don’t want to start an edit war, so how do we start a dispute resolution process? —ThorstenNY (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

There sure is a lot to untangle here: citizenship, residency, ethnicity, national team affiliation — all different but related properties — and how they all relate to Osaka’s notability. I’m mostly okay with the latest version as of 21:53, 9 September 2018‎ (“of Haitian and Japanese heritage representing Japan”) — except that this omits Osaka’s American citizenship (and almost life-long residency), which probably should be mentioned as per WP:MOS/Biography#Context. Also, “heritage” seems a bit vague. What’s described here is Osaka’s ethnic heritage. But there is also cultural heritage, and Ms. Osaka’s arguably is partially to largely American. But we clearly know: ethnicity (Haitian and Japanese), citizenship (U.S. and Japanese), national team affiliation (Japan.) I think mentioning all three aspects (which have all informed, if not outright motivated, major reporting) is less bad than omitting any. —ThorstenNY (talk) 03:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, again it's not so clear. One, are you talking about the article or specifically the lead? Also, I assume you are aware that censuses such as in the USA or Canada allow for the ethnicity of American or Canadian. The ethnicity of French for example come from a melting pot of dozens of older ethnicities. So her ethnicity is also American-Haitian-Japanese for those are advocating for such things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Please keep this conversation in the Representing Haiti section so editors do not have to keep going back and forth. Thank you.Mcelite (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what Fyunck is talking about, but it's clear to the rest of us that Naomi's ethnicity is Haitian and Japanese. Her formative years were spent in America while She was born in Japan, so her Nationality is Japanese and American. It's also clear to many here that her ethnicity is central to her story and a significant part as to why she's received as much fame as She has today, not solely because She's a ranked Tennis Player. We need to move forward and get consensus while leaving the others entrenched in their views behind. Agreed? shiznaw (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Per sourcing you are absolutely wrong. Her ethnicity has been described in many ways other than Haitian and Japanese, and it's sourced in the article. It is not central to her story but it is part of her story, hence the reason we DO have it in the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Fyunck(click) (talk) - Why are you striking out valued and thoughtful responses on this Talk Page?

A blocked sockpuppet's comments. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Ethnicity

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.

---

Haitian - Japanese — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:581:C002:D43:E591:70DC:8C8:BEDA (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed her dual citizenship and updated accordingly.

Since it seems most of the controversy here surrounds descent v. citizenship, I updated the page with a mainstream media reference to her Haitian citizenship:

• Noori Farzan, Antonia. "Japanese, Haitian, and now a Grand Slam winner: Naomi Osaka's historic journey to the U.S. Open". Retrieved 2018-09-10.

and a local media reference to the fact that she's the first Haitian citizen to win.

• "Haitian-Japanese Tennis Player Naomi Osaka is going to U.S. Open finals, her first". Retrieved 2018-09-10.

This should resolve the Haitian citizen v. descendant debate that's been raging on here. Eganist (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Apparently I'm unable to read. She's a DS of US and JP, not US and Haiti. Reverted my own change. Eganist (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Her full heritage contributes to why she is WP:NOTABLE

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.

---

Considering her dual-heritage is more widely discussed than her dual-US/JP citizenship and equally as discussed in the press circuit as her playing specifically under the Japanese flag, it comes across to many as disparaging half of her heritage by omitting such a crucial fact from the initial summary, especially when considering she's been strongly on the record (https://www.ebony.com/news-views/naomi-osaka-haitian-australian-open) fact-checking journalists who neglect half of her heritage. If the player herself actively and vocally represents both sides of her ancestry (both Haitian and Japanese) when playing, then even if she's playing under the Japanese flag, it's clear she's representing multiple groups during competition play; this should be acknowledged as such. See preceding reference and also the video interview referenced therein. Eganist (talk) 03:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Idea: My suggestion is to edit the opening to read "Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997) is a professional tennis player who officially represents Japan internationally in addition to representing the people of both Haiti and Japan" while citing the claim with <ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.ebony.com/news-views/naomi-osaka-haitian-australian-open|title=Tell ‘Em! Tennis Player Checks Reporter for Neglecting to Mention Her Haitian Heritage|access-date=2018-09-11|language=en}}</ref> or any other reference to the Australian Open interview after her match with Ashleigh Barty. Considering we have her on the record as representing both peoples, I'm seeking WP:CONSENSUS via talk/discussion for this edit just to make the change bulletproof prior to making it. Thoughts? Comments? (Editors/Admins, am I doing this right? Eganist (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Her heritage is discussed and it's why it's mentioned in the article. It has no bearing at all as to why she is notable. She could be from Mars and be a notable tennis player. She could wash dishes and wouldn't be notable as being Haitian, Japanese, or American. And when you say widely discussed it is also widely discussed that she is Japanese and American-Haitian-Japanese, and Japanese-American... not just Haitian-Japanese. What would we use since it's a mess? Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Strong oppose - We use it because she uses it consistently and actively flags journalists who neglect it, as cited above, confirming the specific group of people she represents. Nobody here can deny her the right to represent a group other than the group being represented, and as neither you or I are Haitian and considering the amount of Haitian local news coverage (https://haitiantimes.com/2018/09/09/3-things-to-know-about-naomi-osaka/), we cannot tell either her or the world that she doesn't represent Haitians (not Haiti, mind you, but the Haitian peoples). It's also a terrible look to deny this because "it's a mess" -- aside from demeaning a person's heritage for the sake of a clean wikipedia page, avoiding a mess is the purpose of the talk page, to figure out the best way to convey the message that respects her vocal representation of two peoples, and I'd like to think considering her level of passion on the topic of representing two peoples when the rules of the sport only permit representation of one flag that the above proposed change does a decent job, but I'm open to alternative edits that don't disparage her choice considering it's quite apparent she herself views her play as being representative of Haitians and Japanese peoples, not just one or the other. As an aside, she had the option of playing on behalf of Haiti as well (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/08/sport/naomi-osaka-serena-williams-us-open-tennis-int-spt/index.html) but her father ultimately chose Japan for the opportunities rather than for any particular goal of representation (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/09/10/japanese-haitian-and-now-a-grand-slam-winner-naomi-osakas-historic-journey-to-the-u-s-open/?utm_term=.2d62a3d6f944). Seriously though: it's a bad look to avoid discussing who she truly represents in the opening just because "it's a mess." Thoughts? Comments? Editors/Admins, am I doing this right? Eganist (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Added detail: in the Haitian Times reference, it's noted that it was her Haitian father, Leonard Maxime Francois, who signed her up to represent the Japanese flag for the opportunities opened (https://haitiantimes.com/2018/09/09/3-things-to-know-about-naomi-osaka/) and that Naomi even considers herself closer to her dual Japanese/Haitian heritage than her American nationality. Eganist (talk) 04:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I ask again since she is in the press with all those different nationalities listed, what would we use? In the USA her father is often called Haitian-American. She is not notable for her ethnicity, but it is not trivial either. It does belong in the article, and it is in detail in her personal section. The lead would be a summary of that but it seems impossible because she has so many titles we'd have to list them all again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Pointing back to my original suggestion, "Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997) is a professional tennis player who officially represents Japan internationally in addition to representing the people of both Haiti and Japan" while citing the claim with <ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.ebony.com/news-views/naomi-osaka-haitian-australian-open|title=Tell ‘Em! Tennis Player Checks Reporter for Neglecting to Mention Her Haitian Heritage|access-date=2018-09-11|language=en}}</ref> -- I'm open to any change to this theme. There's no need to specifically express "Haitian-Japanese-American" or any variant or subset thereof; just merely conveying that she actively represents the Haitian and Japanese peoples is sufficient. Another idea might be "Naomi Osaka (大坂 なおみ Ōsaka Naomi, born 16 October 1997) is a professional tennis player on behalf of the nation of Japan as well as the people of both Haiti and Japan." or perhaps "is a professional tennis player on behalf of the nation of Japan as well as the people of Haiti." It seems condensed enough, and the reason I'm so dead-set on it is because she ardently makes a point of pushing that she does not ever just represent one group, so a top-line mention of just one represented group is in fact a mis-representation. Thoughts? Comments? Editors/Admins, am I doing this right? Eganist (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Well that would get a Strong oppose from me. She is more Japanese-American than Haitian-American, but I don't want that either. She is also American-Haitian-Japanese, and just Japanese since that's where she was born. All those can be easily sourced, but again it causes problems. I think it is best to leave it as is and explain things in detail in her personal section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Strong oppose  Second opinion requested - Wait, I don't understand. How does the assertion "She is more Japanese-American than Haitian-American" stand? She's 50% Haitian via her father, 50% Japanese via her mother, and was born in America. She herself has said “I don’t necessarily feel like I’m American. I wouldn’t know what that feels like.”here. Secondly, considering America is her place of birth, why are you consistently putting "American" anywhere other than the end? By her own admission and assertion, she's either Haitian-Japanese, Japanese-Haitian, or either of those plus "-American" given that America is her place of birth. Eganist (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

She was born in Japan and plays for Japan, and has lived most of her life in America. And how I would put it doesn't really matter. What matters are the facts and the sources. The facts are she was born in Japan and plays professional tennis for Japan. She was raised in the USA and lives in the USA to this day. Her mother is Japanese and her father is Haitian-American. She has dual Japanese and United States citizenship. The sources are all over the map on what to call her nationally/ethnically, etc... so here we are in a quagmire with twitter and instagram causing all kinds of mayhem with their fabricated stories. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Why do you keep calling her father Haitian-American? Her father is no more Haitian-American than her mother is Japanese-American, but you don't seem to be giving them the same treatment because it's convenient to your argument. He is of Haitian descent and he was born in Haiti - most people would refer to such a person as Haitian. Stop trying to dither his ethnicity, it's just plain offensive. Ropo153 (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ropo153: The sources I was reading called him that, such as here, so stop the "offensive" baloney. Some also call him Haitian, but I have to use something. My understanding is he has United States citizenship and he lives here. If the same goes for her mom she could be referred to as Japanese-American. Do we know about her citizenship? If someone from France moves to the USA as a baby and becomes a citizen and a doctor, I would refer to her as simply American and nothing else. I would say she was born in France though, so french ancestry. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Looking at some other articles dealing with comparable cases like Michael Chang or Vania King it seems we generally prefer to limit the nationality in the lead sentence to the one they officially represent. In this case the player in question is registered with the Japanese tennis federation and as a results represents Japan in international competitions like the Fed Cup, Hopman Cup and will probably do so at the Olympics (the next of which coincidentally takes place in the country she represents) and is equally associated with that nationality and its flag in any other event. It thus makes perfect sense to stick to Japanese in the lead sentence.Tvx1 22:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

This talk page is non-navigable now

With few seeming to care to keep things in the same thread it's really really hard to find conversations anymore. It's utterly a mess. Either we have clones calling clones, or someone posted on the web to flood this page with nasty and repetitive comments and edit-requests. I wish something could be done about it. Sigh. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm quite a ways distinct from the other commentators, but I really think this particular comment seems to dismiss the primary concern. Why the preoccupation with whether something's a mess, be it the talk page or the article itself? As an example, I proposed a specific change which I think warrants some amount of discussion considering the sheer volume of public discussion about it (beyond just the talk page--I cited several external references to this end); can we get back to that and refine/revise/improve it if possible? Looking forward to working with you on this. Eganist (talk) 04:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Why the preoccupation of whether the talk page and article is a mess? I can't believe I read that so no comment on that. The other point does not belong here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll stop dignifying the deflection. I'll focus on the section I opened above and any other related sections on the topic of accurately addressing the groups she represents during gameplay. Eganist (talk) 04:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I did find one of the culprits in the flood of one-time brand new posters. An Instagram post! berating wikipedia and all who edit here. Of course it's a lie if you look back at the page history, but an out-of-context post on Instagram will do that. I also see that the misinformation may have originated on twitter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I'm here because I looked up Naomi Osaka after news reports of the US Open claiming she was just "Japanese" when she didn't look like she was only of Asian descent to me, and I felt rather irritated that the lead of this article (at the time) also just called her "Japanese" before clarifying that she's biracial with dual citizenship and it's clearly more complicated than that. I never saw any social media posts about this issue. My interest in this is as an Asian American who's tired of people with Asian ties being seen solely as Asians from Asia. Incidentally, I'm not terribly unhappy with the current language of "a player representing Japan/first player of that nation" although I think I'd prefer if the first sentence left it at "tennis player" and the second sentence said "first player representing Japan" as I think that's a less awkward way to make it clear it's indicating athletic affiliation. (PS: My edit history would be a bit longer but my ip changed recently when I got a new router.) 96.41.225.223 (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Your concerns were already addressed before this player came up. Neither Michael Chang, nor Vania King are introduced as a Taiwanese tennis player and Apollo Anton Ohno is not introduced as a Japanese ice skater.Tvx1 21:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

When I arrived here, the lead was "Japanese". I don't want to crawl through the hundreds of edits to find the one that changed it, but this is what I saw. I believe Fyunck changed the first two sentences so that she is not referred to as a "Japanese professional tennis player" and I'm happy about that. Similar language still persists on her sister's page, but lest the drama spread to that page, I figured I should leave it be for now. 96.41.225.223 (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, I don't think the three American examples are equatable to this case. First, "Japanese" is an ethnic descriptor as well as a denonym in a way that's far more direct than the equation of "American" with either whiteness or First Nations affiliation. (This is true both linguistically and culturally: prominent mainstream Japanese politicians will openly oppose immigration saying that the Japanese identity is both cultural and racial. In fact, there's a link somewhere on this talk page discussing how Naomi's challenging these notions in Japan.) Second, in Naomi Osaka's case, a variety of other factors make "Japanese" intended as a sports affiliation a misleading statement likely to be misread as Japanese (ethnically+nationally), from her utterly Japanese name to the relative absence of indications to the contrary in the first-glance impression of this article. Anyway, as I said, the current language is much better, but I wanted to argue against what I saw as a false equation.

96.41.225.223 (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

How could Japanese be misread here in any way? She represents the Japanese national teams in this sport, she does have Japanese ethnicity and she has had Japanese nationality for all her life. Japanese is correct in this case no matter what definition one goes by.Tvx1 07:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Because, as I said in my original complaint, it's incomplete. Japanese is only half of the story in everything but athletic representation: she's ethnically half Haitian and she holds dual US citizenship. To anyone who doesn't read "Japanese" as an athletic affiliation (which is probably a substantial proportion of readers, including myself, as I wasn't aware athletic affiliation existed until this talk page) it looks like a claim that she is one thing and, by omission, not anything else (or you would've mentioned that, right?). And now the lead is "Japanese" twice over thanks to GiantSnowman. Ugh. I only take comfort in knowing that this is almost certainly not the final iteration of the lead. 96.41.225.223 (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I archived a bunch of these pointless edit requests. Hope that helps the navigability of this page.Tvx1 23:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Naomi Osaka

Before Naomi Osaka won NY Grand Slam, Wikipedia has described her as a “Haitian-Japanese tennis player”. Two days later it was changed to “a professional tennis player representing Japan”. Why this sudden change? As a Haitian-American journalist, it has been my experience that anytime Haiti is projected through the lenses of posotiveness, someone -by omission it bu commission- decides to erase it or transform it to “something” else. Worse, Wikipedia has blocked her page from any edit. I’m reiterating my question -rhetoric or not-: why the change? Jean Jean-Pierre Jjeanpierre1 (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

That's just no true. It stated simply Japanese long before she won the US Open. Someone added Haitian at a point during the tournament and someone else reverted that. The reason it was removed is that she doesn't hold, nor has ever held Haitian citizenship or nationality.Tvx1 21:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Multiple requests

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.

---

Why do editors keep deleting Osaka's Haitian heritage from the article's introduction?

I'm very disappointed to see repeated attempts to erase Osaka's Haitian identity from the introduction. Osaka was born to a Haitian father and Japanese mother. She only spent a few years in Japan and was raised in Broward County in Florida, a location known for being predominantly influenced by Haitian culture. I do not want to impute any nefarious motives to those who keep erasing this notable fact. Please desist and let the facts stand. See this Washington Post article for details - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/09/10/japanese-haitian-and-now-a-grand-slam-winner-naomi-osakas-historic-journey-to-the-u-s-open/?utm_term=.3e2eb3b0a498. Kunkuru (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

You know there is more to an article than its introduction. Her Haitian heritage is adequately dealt with in the appropriate section. I really wish that people would read more than just the lead of an article. Putting Haitian-Japanese in the introduction is misleading since it would put two completely different concepts (citizenship/nationality and heritage) at apparent par even though they aren't in any way. Moreover that would be completely ignorant of her American citizenship/nationality which she has held her whole life just like her Japanese one. As a dual citizen she could pick between two countries to officially represent (e.g. in the Fed Cup, Hopman Cup and Olympics) and here father chose Japan for her and her sister Mari. It thus makes sense to limit ourselves to using just Japanese in the lead.Tvx1 22:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Lede

She represents Japan, she holds Japanese nationality - for the purposes of the lede (and taking into account WP:OPENPARA) she is Japanese. The Haitian/American elements of her heritage/upbringing are not relevant in the lede. That should be covered in a 'Personal life' paragraph. GiantSnowman 16:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your last edit. You removed the categories calling her American or Haitian saying there is no evidence or source stating she has those citizenships but the Personal and family section calls her an American citizen. The Time source mentions it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.77.231.26 (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

For your attention

Any further editprotected requests asking to add "Haitian-Japanese" to the lead of the article may and will be rolled back on sight as disruptive. @Fyunck(click): - hopefully this will help Fish+Karate 09:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Anyone can still argue their point. this guy @Fyunck(click): is emotionally vested and has been on a personal mission to thwart any attempt in addressing Naomi's complicated anthropology.shiznaw (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate: Wow. I'm not sure that striking out the post of an administrator and spreading lies about me is the way to go here. Plus you removed the strikeout of a blocked sockpuppet. Nice. Maybe you'll get away with doing these things but I wouldn't bet on it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I've hatted all the repetitive requests to make the talk page less manic. Fish+Karate 10:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Standard wording is 'Japanese tennis player' not 'tennis player who represents Japan' or similar. GiantSnowman 12:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read the discussion under "This talk page is non-navigable now" for issues with the word "Japanese". 96.41.225.223 (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• User:Fish and karate, I would like to request that we stick something like "of Haitian-Japanese descent" in the lead. Are you going to roll me back now? ;) Joe Decker, Bus stop, it seems to me that y'all agreed that there was plenty of sourcing to warrant this. GiantSnowman, I don't know what the guidelines say (and I don't care much, really) but I agree with you. That tennis players would "represent" something is sporadically and temporarily; ethnicity and whatnot is ongoing. That Osaka is Haitian-Japanese-American is of huge importance apparently to many people and it's recognized in all kinds of articles in the news; what the tennis guidelines have to say about that is of little interest to me, and they certainly shouldn't dictate uniformly what is important for whom. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Tennis Project Guidelines, as far as I know, say nothing about such things. I think GiantSnowman was simply saying what is normally done. I think actually the tennis articles have all kinds of different things done with nationality. Hers is just a complex one since sources give us Japanese-American, Japanese, Haitian-Japanese, and Haitian-Japanese-American. It's tough to know what is best. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Despite not having Haitian citizenship or nationality wouldn't she be of Haitian ethnicity or of Haitian extraction? The majority of Haitians are black and the father of Naomi Osaka is no exception. By way of contrast most Japanese are not black and not even most citizens of the United States are black. Naomi Osaka shares identities with various groups of people. I think an argument can be made for mentioning each of these groups even in the lede of the article. I think a fairly compact sentence can allude to identities based on citizenship as well as ethnicity. Many sources address the several identities embodied in Naomi Osaka. Bus stop (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• This has been discussed extensively above. Each one of these points has been literally already addressed. Vivexdino (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, and basically shut down with not much of an argument that I can find. Literally. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
    • No it hasn't. The topic has evolved, but the there is no 'shutting down' of the multiple arguments having cited sources above. Are you the almighty Wiki-King now? @Drmies(click): - shiznaw (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox photo

Before raising this sensitive matter, I un-hid the many closed discussions on this page, and searched for "photo" and "image"—neither of which found any previous mention. I therefore presume it's OK to open this new section.

Since Naomi Osaka's Sept. 8 victory in the women's final of the U.S. Open, average daily views of her Wikipedia page have dramatically increased, peaking the next day at 872,064. Concurrently, online criticism has emerged as to Wikipedia's treatment of her race, some of it focusing on our Infobox image. I wish to address the latter specific issue only.

The objections are typified by blogger Douglas V. Gibbs's Sept. 12 post, "Why was Wikipedia Racist Towards Naomi Osaka?" I do not submit this as a prospective reference in our article, given that it is not WP:RS, but solely to encapsulate the argument. Gibbs offers a screencap reproducing Wikipedia's lead and Infobox image Before Winning and After Winning, respectively. He adds captions noting, correctly I believe, that our image before winning "shows her as darker skinned" and after winning, "Suddenly, she's lighter skinned."

Even before reading Gibbs's blog, I became concerned enough by similar criticism that I changed the image back to the more recent photo from 2017 that, as stated in my edit summary, "better represents her present appearance than does one from 2015." Twenty-five minutes later, my edit was reverted, with the explanation that "Recent is not always better, previous photo was more clear and high quality. We also have some from 2018."

I invite discussion by other editors, with the goal of forming consensus as to which of the 42 images in our Wikimedia Commons repository would best represent Ms. Osaka and, at the same time, neutralize accusations of racism. KalHolmann (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Goodness I hate political correctness and the term racist thrown around so casually these days. That aside there is no question that your photo was inferior in quality and lighting (as is), not that what is there now is the best. What is generally wanted in the infobox is a shoulder and head shot looking slightly to the left from our perspective. Then a few pics throughout the article showing her backhand, forehand, serve, and volley. Remember also that the viewership will die down to normal in a few months, especially after the inflammatory social media posts wane. I will endeavor to fix your suggestion so it would be appropriate for the article and see how it turns out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@KalHolmann: I made it more infobox friendly. Thoughts? Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Why is it that when I politely ask for discussion to form consensus, you jump in, make a snarky comment about political correctness and the term racist being thrown around casually, and assume command? I realize you're the top editor of this article with 20.3% of the total. But please give other editors a chance to weigh in before single-handedly taking charge as usual. This page is not your personal fiefdom. KalHolmann (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You realize I wasn't speaking of you, I was speaking of bloggers and their opinions. Sorry if that wasn't clear. You bringing it up here is fine, and it's why I took it to heart to try and fix your suggestion (which I did). No comment on that or is only my taking charge and trying to help an issue? That's cool I'm 20% of the total. I wonder how they figure that out? Considering how many times I had to correct her charts to tennis project guidelines and remove improper posts it's not surprising, but when I scroll through the actual edits made by everyone my total looks tiny. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I honestly think this current photo is the best photo of her for the info box that we have access to. We need to make sure we can always use the best picture of her whether she has a tan or not. People are too sensitive and always jump to conclusions and I'm a minority saying this.Mcelite (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Thanks for bringing this up KalHolmann. We have photos also from 2018 that could be cropped. The current photo looks okay though. Claiming photos are racist is indeed pretty desperate however. Vivexdino (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Before uploading this pic I looked through wikimedia commons and public domain flickr and didn't really see any good head-shot pics I could use. I thought there might be a lot more but they were all protected photos we couldn't use. That's why I circled back to KalHolmann's original photo suggestion and thought maybe it could work fine if it was cropped and not so dark. I do some photo editing part-time so I took it on myself to download the original and fix it as best I could in a short time. Of course that will add to my 20.3% of edits but I took a chance that no one would hold that against me. :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Makes sense. Vivexdino (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Please help me understand. Why is it that the cropped image you uploaded today to Wikimedia Commons and inserted into the Infobox is so much lighter than its source file? KalHolmann (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• 
• 

Why? Because that's one of the items I corrected and I mentioned that in the photo file. It was a very dark picture and often we have to tweak things to make them more visible to readers. This must be done with many photos no matter what subject we are dealing with. The fact the lighting was poor in the original was one of the reasons it was not a good pic for the infobox. The cropping issue was the other. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It reminds me of the O.J. Simpson mugshot that Time magazine famously altered to score a racist point. Of course, they darkened, rather than lightened, the image. So there's that. KalHolmann (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Look, if you don't like it then remove it. I did my best to make it look like it was taken in sunshine rather than a basement with a flickering candle; to bring out details that were hidden in shadow. I don't do things to score points nor do I like any insinuation that it was done for that purpose. I do everything here to best serve our readers. You may have an agenda but I don't. I don't boast that I'm in the top 10 edits in anything on wikipedia like you do, because I don't care. That's not why I'm here. I think we're about done here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

"If you don't like it, then remove it." that might not be a bad idea; there's no value to editing a professional shot, and I'm sure we can find plenty of other appropriately licensed shots. Eganist (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Then go for it Eganist. Dig 'em up and put 'em up. Professional shots get edited all the time as they have since the time of the dark room and how long you leave the pic in the solution. Usually we don't get "professional" photos here since they are under copyright. We get someone with a telephoto lens that didn't open up the aperture wide enough. We had someone complain about the photo that was in the infobox so I did my best to find and make something better that fit the parameters of what works best for our many tennis player articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

KalHolmann, are you seriously trying to suggest something about Fyunck(click)'s motives? As if the picture to the right makes her look more like a white person? This is just laughable now. Taking sensitivity to the extreme. Vivexdino (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

KalHomann are you serious...Mcelite (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I think User:Fyunck(click)'s just very tired about this subject and wants to go back to writing about tennis but they've really, really been trying to understand all the angles for weeks on end and the tone in the original reply should be forgiven. I respect them greatly for how long they've maintained good faith and kept an open mind to the arguments coming in. Anyway, I do feel like I should back up the original complaint here by pointing out that there has historically been a trend of making pictures of dark-skinned people look lighter for flatter shots. It's easy to find many many writeups on the topic via google. I don't think it's necessarily ill-intended: How much our understanding of photography, art, and composition has been developed with light skin in mind? A photographer may just make a tweak thinking "this is how you make the shot beautiful," by necessity basing that decision off of their experience that has mostly been formed working with light skin. (Incidentally, if you watch an art film like Moonlight that features dark skin, you'll see that it finds unique ways to manipulate contrast, value, and negative space using the dark skin of its characters.) 96.41.225.223 (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Google image search finds 99 matches for the photo on the left, posted on an equal number of websites internationally. Some of the pictures, for whatever technical reason, are distorted horizontally. Yet not one has been brightened. Only Wikipedia finds it necessary to visually deemphasize the reality of Naomi Osaka as a woman of color. KalHolmann (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

A few thoughts. a. there is no "Wikipedia"--there's various editors. b. it is probably worthwhile to get an expert (or two) on photos and lighting and whatnot, to figure out what is edited and what isn't. c. that blog is lousy, just lousy--just a dude making a comment without much explanation. d. let's not throw around the term "political correctness", which is just a cudgel. e. it is very worth while figuring out what is happening with the photos, and the OJ comparison is valid. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

KalHomann the lighting isn't a huge difference at all. She still has her tan brown skin obviously showing that she is of mixed heritage. The image is in very good condition and I could care less if it was when she had her tan or when she didn't. Even if a better photo was used that showed her with lighter skin because it was taken during her off season I feel you would complain and say that the picture was picked because of her complexion and not the quality of the photo.Mcelite (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Mcelite, obviously people disagree on whether it's a huge difference. And please AGF: "I feel that..." violates AGF, and it really doesn't mean anything. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mcelite: I'm not complaining about the picture. I'm complaining about Wikipedia doctoring the image to suit a particular point of view. KalHolmann (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay KalHolmann I don't think it was doctored to suit a particular point of view. Honestly in my opinion it looks more defined with more light, but if it's that huge of a issue then maybe the original should be used if possible at all. The background was also lightened. I don't think this was done out of racism but to provide more detail and I think some are being very over sensitive about it.Mcelite (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

KalHolmann, you just said "Only Wikipedia finds it necessary to visually deemphasize the reality of Naomi Osaka as a woman of color." I think I just lost a few brain cells reading that. I'm officially done. Vivexdino (talk) 01:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Vivexdino I'm sorry for your loss, and we'll just have to do without you then. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

• Use original photo, the version that's uncropped and unretouched. It offers better composition; the arms/hands are not cut off; and it does not look washed out / manipulated. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox photo part two

I also enjoy photography and photo editing. I found that the original of the above image was not under-exposed – the whitest part of her dress is white – therefore the skin tones and the hair colour are correct. What I've done is to lighten the background, so the picture is brighter but the skin tone is unchanged. I've also done a less radical crop so that the whole of the arm is shown. Scolaire (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any point in reverting back to an image that had not gained a consensus in this discussion. I sincerely hope it wasn't just sour grapes. Scolaire (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, can you confirm that when you said "use original photo" you meant this one and not this one? And if so, are you agreeable with my edit of it? Scolaire (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not a question of sour grapes. The original was weak but fine. I saw the one you put up but had been reverted. It was far worse as it was compared to the original. I tried to fix it by brightening and cropping, and when it was finished I thought, and so did multiple others, that it was now better than the original. Now it's back to looking like it was filmed by candlelight in a cavern, and it's not cropped enough. I have no problem going back to the way it was before mine and your edits. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You can bet this infobox photo will change on a regular basis. They almost always do. For a long time it was a different picture. Then it changed. Then in April it got changed by a new user to the pic you like, but in gigantic format. It got fixed but then was change back to a previous version. Then it got changed to the version I found it in. I thought maybe I could do better with an older attempt. Some here didn't agree with my fixes and I'm ok with that. I'm not ok with KalHolmann and his nasty comments and not assuming good faith. So I went back to the version I found it in. The version you tried to put up had been removed before by other editors, and now by me. I think it's inferior to the way I found it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Edit-warring is not the way to go about it. You could have raised your concerns here, or done a straight revert back to your version and then discussed here. That awful picture you reverted to was not the "original". The other image was in the infobox, and stable, from 5 April until 9 September. that other image was added the same day, and lasted less than three days. The 5 April edit didn't even replace the 2015 image, it replaced a different, 2016 image. There is a very real danger that Wikipedia will be accused of racism if we keep changing the image at the top to a lighter-skinned picture. Scolaire (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Then don't edit war... I'm not. The original I was talking about was the original state I found it in. I gave the details of how often it will change and continue to change. And that racism danger is a load of crapola. It's a question of sun or shade. The way I found it was the original snapshot also. It was simply taken under sunlight which I attempted to do with that crummy pic. Ok, so some didn't like it, and that's fine. I didn't mind if it got reverted to how I found it, and you shouldn't either. It'll get changed about 20 more times in the next year. This pic has also been used. It was also this way for awhile. That's a better pic than your proposal. Although I assume you might protest that the sun on her left leg is some sinister plot to lighten her skin, so we'll have to crop that out Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think that that picture is far better than any of the others. I suggest we change back to that; it will save endless circuitous arguing about light and dark, sunlight and shade. Scolaire (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hence our difference of opinion. We would need a discussion with a list of choices of all the photos to determine which to use, and even that won't hold because new pics will be uploaded all the time and used by the next editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Fine. In the meantime the default image should be the last stable image, i.e. the one that was there for five months rather than the four that were there for between a few hours and a few days. That just happens to be the one in the current version of the article. Since you say you don't mind if your edit gets reverted, I will expect you not to edit-war to change the image in future. But of course you should feel free to open an RfC with a list of choices if you want. Scolaire (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

You know something... you and your "edit-war" delusion is getting old quite fast. Knock that baloney off and try to be part of the solution. If I find a new pic I will change it, just as others have done. You idea of stable is also strange. The timeline is:

• 2014 - no pic for 4 months.
• Nov 2014–Nov 2016, Photo 1
• Nov 2016–April 2018, Photo 2
• April 2018-Sep 2018, your so called "stable image" Photo 3 (Scolaire favorite)
• Sep 7-Sep 8, Photo 4 (really poor image, even worse than Scolaire favorite)
• Sep 8 Scolaire changes it back to their own favorite, Photo 3
• Sep 8, changed back to Photo 1
• Sep 8–Sep 10, Photo 5, the image I first noticed
• Sep 10, back to Photo 3
• Sep 10-Sep 12, back to Photo 5
• Sep 12, I listened to a post and tried to fix Photo 3
• Sep 21, Scolaire tried a fix of Photo 3
• Sep 21, I went back to how I found it, Photo 5
• Sep 21, Scolaire posts edit-war delusion
• Sep 21, changed to Photo 3
• Sep 21, Scolaire posts 2nd edit war delusion

There could always be a pic I missed in looking at all the edits, but the most stable versions are Photos 1 and 2. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the timeline. To address my "delusion" first. I made a bold edit, adding a new version of the then current image, believing it would resolve the issue, with an edit summary that linked to this discussion, where I set out my reasons for thinking that. You reverted on sight. You didn't say anything on the talk page. A few hours later you reverted again. Again, you didn't post to the talk page until after I had re-opened the discussion. That is edit-warring. It is low-level; it is not a 3RR violation; but it is edit-warring. Your attitude in the discussion suggested that you might continue to revert, so I asked you not to.

Now to some of your "delusions": (1) I never used the phrase "most stable". I said "last stable image". As your timeline shows, the image was changed ten times in 14 days. The last image that had any kind of stability was photo 3. If the image is going to be reverted, it should be reverted to the most recent stable version. That's a well-established Wikipedia convention. "The way you found it" is not a baseline for anything. (2) Photo 3 is not my favourite. I'm not especially fond of it at all. I've already said that my favourite is Photo 2. I suggested we agree to go back to that, but while on the one hand you think that anybody should be allowed to change the image at any time, on the other you seem to think that two people agreeing to add an image is anathema – that it "would need a discussion with a list of choices of all the photos to determine which to use." So we seem to be stuck with Photo 3. Tant pis! (3) I have never at any time suggested that a new picture could not be added, by you or anybody else. My only issue is with reverting to an image that has been shown to be problematic.

I have remained civil through all of this. I have not used words like "baloney" and "crapola". I would ask the same courtesy of you. Scolaire (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: the image in the current version of the article (dark green background) works for me. The face is not in the shade; Osaka is facing left, etc. A nice infobox image overall. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with K.e.coffman, the current image is fine. @Fyunck(click): there is no need to throw around potentially offensive words like 'delusion', repeatedly. Stop that now, please. Fish+Karate

    Then he had best stop singling out and throwing around the term edit war because it's a fabrication of his own mind. He changed the photo twice, and not per some talk page mandate. If he continues with any sort of edit war claim (which he has not) I will continue to defend myself. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Update her ethnicity

She is half Japanese and half Haitian with an American passport. Please update accordingly. Nfaustin (talk) 02:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This has already been discussed see "Representing Haiti Section" Her ethnicity is mentioned in her article.Mcelite (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Striking out posts

Re this, this and this, it would be helpful if somebody could point to the relevant guideline. I know that there is a convention (or possibly a written guideline) that a post by a sockpuppet of a blocked or banned user is reverted, since it is an attempt to get around the block or ban, but that is not the case here. In the first place, Tennisexpertise was not blocked until after he or she posted to this page; in the second, there is no evidence that he or she abusively used sockpuppets on this page. It seems to me that anything he/she said here is relevant, even if he/she was socking elsewhere. Wolbo said in his/her edit summary, it is common usage to strike-through comments by confirmed sockpuppets. I'd like to see some examples, because I've seen plenty of users blocked for sockpuppetry, but I've never seen this retrospective striking out of their posts before. Scolaire (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Shiznaw: it would help if you could state your case here, instead of just continually reverting. @Fyunck(click): it would be interesting to hear your take on this as well. Scolaire (talk) 14:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You have a point on timing. Usually someone gets blocked or banned for something and all future posting are deleted on sight. Unless of course a long conversation has happened and we just strike it through. This editor was a sockpuppet since June of 2018 and was finally caught on Sep 10. Whether they were or not sockpuppeting here would make no difference, they are a wikipedia sockpuppet. If it was something really bad it would have been deleted, but in this case I thought it best to simply strike through so anyone could still read it but would know it was a person who was "at that time" abusing their wikipedia privileges. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): has done nothing but sabotage any attempt at intellectual discourse by speciously labeling others as disruptive or sockpuppets. I submit to you as proof his actions above in summarily shutting down those who argue to include Naomi's multi-faceted background in the opening paragraph. He offers no substantive proof as to his newly-contrived claim that whatever a supposed sockpuppet states on a discussion page must be stricken. It's as if this kid is just making it up as he goes along. His needless striking of other's comments after summarily declaring them 'puppets' and his deference in treatment of those who unilaterally oppose anything but listing Naomi as singularly Japanese. It's already been proven via numerous citations and other Wikipedia Entries herein this discussion page that there is precedent to do as what is suggested in Support 6, yet Fyunck et al continually attempted to thwart logical discourse or discredit anyone expressing opposing valid or credible viewpoints. @Tennisexpertise: had posited some strong points as to his position long before any discussion of a compromise as outlined in Supports 1 thru 6, yet this guy - Fyunck - seems to be too emotionally vested in proving anyone who dare oppose his narrowed viewpoint as an interloper of some sort. It's tiring and juvenile @Scolaire: shiznaw (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Now there's a big chip on someones shoulder. Goodness what a pack of lies. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Shiznaw: I asked you to state your case; I did not ask you to engage in a lengthy personal attack. That doesn't help the discussion at all. @Fyunck(click): I asked for policies, guidelines or conventions. Your answer appears to be nothing more than "no, it's not usually done, but I thought it would be a good idea to do it here." WP:TPO states, Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning...Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request (emphasis in original). Exceptions to this include Removing or striking through comments made by blocked sock puppets of users editing in violation of a block or ban (emphasis added). A user cannot violate a block before it is imposed. Until I see a Wikipedia policy that explicitly overrides the talk page guidelines, I will undo any further strikethrough. Scolaire (talk) 09:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)