Editing Eurovision Wiki:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (section)

== Tomoko Tamura ==

*{{pagelinks|Tomoko Tamura}}

There is an ongoing edit war in the article where an editor is repeatedly adding false or misleading statements (e.g. [[Special:Diff/1342676881]]) that are either unsupported by the cited sources or rely on outlets such as CCTV, Taiwan.cn, and China Daily, which are either deprecated or not considered reliable for Taiwan-related issues. The editor continues to insert claims such as "Tamura is a staunch supporter of Chinese Unification" and "she does not view Taiwan as an independent country", neither of which is supported by the cited source (the reference to Tamura discussing Chinese unification or the political status of Taiwan isn't even there ''at all'' in the text [https://m.dzplus.dzng.com/share/general/0/NEWS2899094CITVPPFCZQOGR]), as well as other statements that flatly fail verification and are in violation of [[WP:BLP]]. These edits persist despite repeated warnings and reverts. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-15151-84|&#126;2026-15151-84]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-15151-84|talk]]) 05:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

:Pinging @[[User:Scu ba|Scu ba]], given their involvement.  I'd be ''extremely'' cautious of using [[China Daily]] as an RS regarding ''anything'' related to Taiwan. In the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#China_Daily perennial sources] table, it states:
:*"China Daily is a publication owned by the Chinese Communist Party. The 2021 RfC found narrow consensus against deprecating China Daily, owing to the lack of available usable sources for Chinese topics. There is consensus that China Daily may be used, cautiously and with good editorial judgment, as a source for the position of the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Communist Party; as a source for the position of China Daily itself; as a source for facts about non-political events in mainland China, while noting that (a) China Daily's interpretation of those facts is likely to contain political spin, and (b) China Daily's omission of details from a story should not be used to determine that such details are untruthful; and, with great caution, as a supplementary (but not sole) source for facts about political events of mainland China. Editors agree that when using this source, context matters a great deal and the facts should be separated from China Daily's view about those facts. It is best practice to use in-text attribution and inline citations when sourcing content to China Daily."
:I don't speak Japanese, but I would think there would be additional sources on this we could use instead.  China Daily would be a good source for the "parroted" line at the end of the section. [[User:BubbaJoe123456|BubbaJoe123456]] ([[User talk:BubbaJoe123456|talk]]) 13:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
::I’d also like to point out the edit history of this user. I don’t want to cast doubts on a legitimate editor but this looks extremely suspicious how they only made this account specifically to roll back these edits and then accuse me of BLP infringement. [[User:Scu ba|<span style="color: red">'''Scu'''</span>]][[User talk:Scu ba|<span style="color:blue">ba</span>]] 15:04, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:I am citing her own quotes on the issue directly with no commentary from China Daily other than it is using her statements to parrot a pro-Chinese stance on Taiwan. Because she has stated, verbatim, in quotes, several points which I also included in quotations. You can open up the sources, hit translate, and just command F what I quoted. It’s all in there, I’m not sure why you’re getting so defensive about this, especially since you created your account specifically for this. [[User:Scu ba|<span style="color: red">'''Scu'''</span>]][[User talk:Scu ba|<span style="color:blue">ba</span>]] 14:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
::Can't we find any other source for these quotes, or similar?  I'd be hard-pressed to find ANYTHING China Daily says about Taiwan-related issues as reliable, even a direct quote like that.  I'm certainly aware of the COI flavor of the original poster's comments and edits, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong. [[User:BubbaJoe123456|BubbaJoe123456]] ([[User talk:BubbaJoe123456|talk]]) 16:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Sure, those where just the first results that came up in English, I’ll look around when I get home from work. [[User:Scu ba|<span style="color: red">'''Scu'''</span>]][[User talk:Scu ba|<span style="color:blue">ba</span>]] 23:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Since I've been swamped recently I've reworked the paragraph to limit discussion to just how Chinese propaganda uses her statements, will get back to this when I can. [[User:Scu ba|<span style="color: red">'''Scu'''</span>]][[User talk:Scu ba|<span style="color:blue">ba</span>]] 00:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::No, Tamura or the JCP doesn't have "a pro-Chinese stance on Taiwan". It is bizarre to claim otherwise if you are aware of relevant facts regarding East Asian geopolitics, including the historic hostility between the JCP and the CCP where the JCP even criticizes China in its party platform (see [https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3139887/japanese-communist-party-snubs-chinas-communist-party-centenary] and [https://web.archive.org/web/20200119142118/https://japantoday.com/category/politics/japan%27s-communist-party-raps-china-in-1st-platform-change-since-2004]; there is even a Wikipedia article for this: [[Relations between the Japanese Communist Party and the Chinese Communist Party]]).
::The JCP's position has always been that (a) it opposes China's use of force or threats of force against Taiwan, while at the same time (b) opposing military involvement or intervention by Japan and the United States (see the "Taiwan issue" section of [https://www.jcp.or.jp/web_policy/2024/04/post-981.html]). [[User:Scu ba]] seems to be trying to use sources that support (b) to insinuate the exact opposite of (a), where all they do is either distort or cherry-pick the source text or completely make things up, but there is no [[WP:RS]] to support that, and it contradicts everything the available sources say. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-15433-25|&#126;2026-15433-25]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-15433-25|talk]]) 00:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::@[[User:Scu ba|Scu ba]]: If you look closely at your text, anyone can see the consistent pattern of distortion which makes it clear that what you're doing is far from simply citing Tamura's quotations:
::*{{tq|Tamura is a staunch supporter of Chinese Unification, calling the matter an issue of Chinese "internal affairs" as she does not view Taiwan as an independent country.}} – This is false and completely made up, as the source [https://m.dzplus.dzng.com/share/general/0/NEWS2899094CITVPPFCZQOGR] doesn't say anything even resembling that.
::*{{tq|She demanded Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi retract a statement that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would pose a "survival-threatening situation" for Japan}} – This is correct.
::*{{tq|and emphasized that she and the Japanese Communist Party where in constant contact with the Chinese Communist Party to voice their opposition to any Japanese military intervention in Taiwan to defend it from a Chinese invasion.}} – This is misleading, as the CCP and the JCP are never in "constant contact" and the source [https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202511/14/WS69173235a310d6866eb299c2.html] doesn't say that.
::*{{tq|When Takaichi refused to do so she personally led a protest in front of the Prime Minister's office calling for Takaichi's resignation.}} – The source [https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202511/17/WS691a7655a310d6866eb29c8b.html] doesn't discuss Tamura "leading a protest".
::*{{tq|She has routinely called for Japan to "respect" that Taiwan is "a part of China" and that any claim to the contrary is "absolutely unacceptable and must be withdrawn."}} – This is misleading/overstatement and the latter part fails verification. While the official position of all major Japanese parties (including the JCP) is that Japan should honor the 1972 [[Japan–China Joint Communiqué]], the JCP is still one of the most vocal critics of China's pressure on Taiwan and strictly opposes any use of force to change the status quo.
::*{{tq|Her statements on the issue are routinely parroted by Chinese propaganda outfits, such as China Daily and China Central Television, to claim that support for Taiwan is unpopular in Japan.}} – This is [[WP:OR]]. You need independent sources to verify that.
::[[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-15470-18|&#126;2026-15470-18]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-15470-18|talk]]) 02:02, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
::{{Done}} It's been 24 hours and @[[User:Scu ba|Scu ba]] has not responded. I am reverting the unilateral, undiscussed revision by @[[User:Scu ba|Scu ba]] due to obvious [[WP:BLP]] concerns (see above) that remain unaddressed. I wonder why this editor was not given more severe sanctions during their previous block for edit warring (which was only 72 hours, later extended to one week), especially since their disruptive pattern of behavior is persisting.
::Unfortunately, articles on East Asian politics do not seem to receive as much scrutiny here as those on US politics; the editor's revision would have been instantly reverted to a stable version if this were a US politics entry. There is much greater room for obviously biased edits to slip in when the topic is niche to English speakers. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-15672-96|&#126;2026-15672-96]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-15672-96|talk]]) 04:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Hi yes, I have this thing called a job, and had to work overtime for a project, sorry I wasn't able to scour google in Japanese yet, but you also don't get to unilaterally close noticeboard discussions YOU STARTED, that defeats the whole point. [[User:Scu ba|<span style="color: red">'''Scu'''</span>]][[User talk:Scu ba|<span style="color:blue">ba</span>]] 00:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Scu ba|Scu ba]]: What are you even doing here? I have already responded to your "staunch Chinese unification supporter" claim, where I concretely demonstrated (among your other false claims) that your source [https://m.dzplus.dzng.com/share/general/0/NEWS2899094CITVPPFCZQOGR] doesn't contain any claim even remotely resembling the text you added, and that the "parroted by Chinese propaganda outfits" claim is [[WP:OR]] requiring independent sources. My response established a ''prima facie'' case for the removal of your text from the article due to obvious, demonstrable, and ongoing [[WP:BLP]] concerns that haven't been addressed here (see [[WP:BLPRS]]: {{tq|contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion}}).
::::What is your response to that? All you said was that you had a job and couldn't respond in time, which is fine – but it was still the right decision to delete your text given the evidence I presented demonstrating just how problematic your revision is, especially when [[WP:BLP]] is involved. Why did you restore the claim without responding to my earlier points?
::::This seems to be completely unacceptable behavior; it constitutes a massive violation of [[WP:BLP]] and warrants lengthy sanctions and blocks. Heavily mischaracterizing a living politician's positions and beliefs in a way that contradicts all her previous statements essentially amounts to [[character assassination]], where all you did was Google things online. When will [[WP:BLPADMINS]] be finally enforced against those heavily abusing the system here? [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-15850-18|&#126;2026-15850-18]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-15850-18|talk]]) 04:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::exactly, I removed the contentious claims from contentious sources. Interesting that you are now going on about WP procedure after trying to close a noticeboard you yourself opened. [[User:Scu ba|<span style="color: red">'''Scu'''</span>]][[User talk:Scu ba|<span style="color:blue">ba</span>]] 14:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::No, the contentious claims (the "staunch Chinese unification supporter" claim and the "parroted by Chinese propaganda outfits" claim; the former is entirely unsupported by the source and the latter is [[WP:OR]]) are still in the article. You unilaterally restored them without responding to my points here. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2026-15850-18|&#126;2026-15850-18]] ([[User talk:&#126;2026-15850-18|talk]]) 14:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)