Talk:Anti-Japanese sentiment/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Boycott images

It seems seriously inappropriate to have images related to the anti-made-in-Japan-goods campaign in the US in the late 1930s next to talk of racism and xenophobia. The boycott of Japanese goods was an attempt to support China's efforts to repel an aggressive Japanese conquest, not an outpouring of xenophobia. Actually, the more I read this article, the dumber it gets - "Anti-Japanese racism in California had become increasingly xenophobic," what does that even mean? Is there non-xenophobic racism? <eleland/talkedits> 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Disney's cartoons

Disney made several anti-Japanese cartoons during the war, as I recall. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? --Ragemanchoo82 (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Not everything needs a Wiki entry.69.204.225.103 (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Original Research

Please take a look at the section "Korea".

>>Anti-Japanese attitudes in the Korean Peninsula can be traced as far back as the Japanese denial of their origin/roots,

This is an original research. No proof at all. The Japanese denial of their origin? Does that mean the Japanese originated in Korea? There's no proof for it. "The Japanese denial of their origin" does not make sense because they never denied such a thing.

>>Most historians know the close relations between Korea and Japan throughout history.

Who are the "most histrians"? It is true that Japan learned much from Korea but it does not mean Japan originated from Korea.

>>Emperor Kammu's grandfather was Korean but this is not mentioned often in Japan nor is it studied indept to find their Korean lineage, instead Imperial tombs are blocked from archeological studies by foreign archeologists

Most Japanese do not know much about the Imperial family and it is natural that the Emperor's grandfather was Korean because it is not an important issue. Moreover, the information about Emperor Kammu's ancestory is only mentioned in Shoku Nihongi and the reliability of it is arguable. Besides, even if Emperor Kammu's grandfather was Korean, it does not mean that the Imperial family originated in Korea. It only means the Imperial family has connection to Korea.

Objectiveye claims as if Japanese people denied this information but they do not. Shoku Nihongi says no details and we do not have other sources support this information. The Japanese never denied the information that the mother of Emperor Kammu was of Korean origin (Actually, Soku Nihongi does not mention the grandfather of the emperor. It says that his mother was of Korean origin). People only says it is arguable. They don't say it is either true or false.

Furthermore, what does this have to do with this article? It seems to me that the writer just want to make believe that Korea was the origin of Japan, which is not true.

>>and historiacal errors from the early 1900s are not updated.

Information from DPRK cannot be trusted because it is strongly biased. I think every one of you knows it.

>>The National geographics wrote Japan "has kept access to the tombs restricted, prompting rumors that officials fear excavation would reveal bloodline links between the "pure" imperial family and Korea"

What does this have to do with this article?

>>Whenever the Japanese downplay these facts, it causes tension and mistrust in Korea.

Pure original research. You say "facts", but they are not the fact, but only "claims".

>>Many of Japan's ancient artifacts are related to Korea, "Inariyama sword, as well as some other swords discovered in Japan, utilized the Korean “Idu” system of writing" the swords "originated in Paekche and that the kings named in their inscriptions represent Paekche kings rather than Japanese kings"

It is true that many of Japan's ancient artifacts are related to Korea. So, what does that have to do with this article?

>>The denial of these facts in history was the beginning of the anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea.

Denial? Who denied what? Pure original research.

>>Furthermore the subsequent revisionism in history textbooks used in Japan's educational system after WWII have caused conflict. Today, issues of Japanese history textbook controversies, Japanese policy regarding WWII, and geographic disputes between the two countries perpetuate this sentiment, and these issues often incur huge disputes between Japanese and Korean internet users. Korea, together with China, may be considered as among the most intensely anti-Japanese societies in the world.

Well, this is true. Properly cited.

As you can see, this edit is made up of original research only. It may SEEM to have information sources, but some of them are not reliable (DPRK) and the others do not have anything to do with the article.

Therefore, I strongly believe that my revision here has a good reason to be done. --Je suis tres fatigue (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems with article

Many unsourced claims. This article is also leaning heavily towards portraying non-Japanese people as extremely racist. "The U.S. conviction that the Japanese were subhuman or animals" A statement like this should flat out not exist. You cannot state as fact that the U.S.(the entire population? the country itself?) held a conviction that the Japanese were subhuman or animals. Many were just ordinary racists and believed the Japanese were people who were deceptive and evil, but not that they were animals. Other problems, some OR, etc. You should just be able to look at article and tell the many problems, so I'm just going to start cleaning up.AerobicFox (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Pacific theatre of fighting in WW2, due to certain unfortunate tendencies of the Japanese military (such as mistreating prisoners, and refusing to surrender even in a completely militarily hopeless situation), there grew to be a widespread conviction among the U.S. military in the Pacific that the Japanese "did not value human life" or "set no value on human life", and this led to a partial breakdown of the normal "courtesies of war" or military protocols in many areas, and led many soldiers to view the Japanese more as vermin to be exterminated than as a noble chivalrous opponent to be defeated -- often exacerbating whatever previous racist views they may have held. AnonMoos (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I am alright with a description like that. I just don't want to be stating due to a lack of specific words that the entire American populace viewed the Japanese as subhuman.AerobicFox (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"short Japan"?

The word "小" in Chinese generally means "small, little, lesser". I believe, however, The term "小日本" in this context should be translated as "puny Japan(ese)". "little"/"short" makes little sense - this term is applied to both Japanese people and the nation of Japan itself. And as a definitive derogatory term, "puny" sounds just about right. I don't know if there's an established translation(I believe not), but since it is purely personal opinion, I thought I should ask here. Blodance the Seeker 20:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I also made changes to the "Yellow Army" stuff. for the association of yellow with pornography in modern Chinese, see Yellow#Etymology and definitions. (A side note, in old Chinese, the color of yellow is associated with the Emperor, or Imperial power.) Blodance the Seeker —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

Go right ahead and make such changes.AerobicFox (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Waein, Waenom

Regarding the Korean derogatory terms, I believe that "Waein" should be replaced with "Waenom", which is what this article was like 6 months ago. The difference between "in" and "nom" is that "nom" can be used derogatively. "ilbon-in", "meiguk-in", "junguk-in", "hanguk-in" can be all seen as polite ways to say Japanese, American, Chinese and Korean respectively. "Gin" is also used with some respect. On the other hand, "ilbonnom", "yangnom" are seen as more rude. You can say "Shibbal nom, Ilbonnom" (Fuck you, Ilbonnom), but not "Shibbal nom, Ilbon-in" (Fuck you, Ilbon-in). Benlisquare (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"Shibal nom, Ilbon-in" actually means "you are shibal nom, ilbon-in"... You could say this in any other context. It's not a Japan-specific phrase.

Also I am not sure if the slangs used by older generations deserve to be listed as some sort of a specifically anti-japanese phenomenon. My grandfather refers to Americans as "migooknom," but he doesn't think they are inferior or anything like that. It's just a way to refer to foreigners for old people, reminiscent of the derogatory language used to refer to barbarians in the old days. (Chunbum Park (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

Regarding your edit summary, keep in mind that you're replying to a 3 year old post. I'm pretty sure I had 30% less knowledge when I was 16 compared to what I know today. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Auto-archiving

I've turned on auto-archiving (set at 31 days). This will decrease the size of this page (note that all info is kept, just on separate archive pages), and prevent people from replying to 3 year old threads (as happened yesterday). Qwyrxian (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong in pointing out a 3 year old mistake. (Chunbum Park (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

Oh, certainly not. The problem is that in most cases, the original editor is unlikely to still be watching the page, and new watchers may ignore the old comment, thus it's usually better to start a new thread. Sorry if it sounded like I was criticizing your comment. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Benlisquare was saying his 3-year old edits were prone to mistake because he was younger, not that it was harder to keep track of. Yes what you're saying is true, but I would still go ahead and reply to it anyways. (Chunbum Park (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

Derogatory terms

removed the Derogatory terms section. If it is a part of a discrimination section then all of it should remain in that section and not on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.226.244 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

china

why link to the china page? merged http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_China with this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.226.244 (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

korea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Japanese_sentiment_in_Korea

i would merge that one but its locked to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.226.244 (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yasukuni Shrine

this is Anti-Japanese sentiment page not shrine page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.226.244 (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Okinotorishima

removed the see also Okinotorishima link as it is a land dispute not anti-japanese sentiment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.226.244 (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits that you have done without proper community discussion which are controversial. You will need to gain community consensus first. Your edits consisted of mass blankings, cherry-picked POV removals as per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and the copypasting of a separate page. A WP:DUCK test suggests that you might be attempting to whitewash the article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Skewed approach

I wont' go so far as to say this is POV, but the article puts way too much emphasis on Anti-Japanese sentiment from World War II America. While the stat box toward the top of the article is the *current* anti-Japanese sentiment, the bulk of the article focuses on one country's anti-Japanese sentiment from a 10 year (or so) period from 70 years ago. For instance, every image in the entire article except one is of World War II propaganda posters. Meanwhile the massive anti-Japanese sentiment still present in modern-day China is largely glossed over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephalon1 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

A good point. The main problem I see is that the US section is too long. As shown at the beginning of that section (and, in fact, the other sections), we have separate articles on individual countries. The thing would be to cut the US section down to a single paragraph; all of the other details belong in Anti-Japanese sentiment in the United States. Feel free to be bold and start making the cuts; just to be safe, you'll want to check the other article to make sure that anything you cut here is already there. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Korean slur, Jjokbari

I'm not trying to vandalize this article, but a pig feet theory of Jjokbari ( 쪽발이) sounds very weird to me. It is true that a name for pig feet dish called "Jokbal" (족발) and somewhat similar to this racial slur, but I believe it is a coincidence in pronunciation. As far as I know, the word came into existence from the sounds when someone wears tabi (a Onomatopoeia word). If the word really has "pig feet" meaning/root, then we need a reliable source for it. PBJT (talk) 19:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

References (1) Korean Wikitionary for the word.(2) Standard Korean Dictionary.

After looking up the dictionary, I found that the word isn't Onomatopoeia, and I confused with other word. (FYI, 딸깍발이') Sorry about my mistake. According to the dictionary, the word has following meanings:

1. single-footed object (한 발만 달린 물건.)
2. an object/animal with two-piece foot (발통이 두 조각으로 된 물건)
3. derogatory slur for Japanese people. When wearing tabis, it splits the thumb toe and other toes. derived from "split feet or 짜개발" (일본 사람을 낮잡아 이르는 말. 엄지발가락과 나머지 발가락들을 가르는 게다를 신는다는 데서 온 말이다. ≒짜개발).

If no reliable source for "pig feet" explanation provided, I'll remove the sentence again later. PBJT (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Here is an analogy for Jjokbal and Jokbal : In Japanese, South Korea is Kankoku (韓国) and the prison is Kangoku(監獄). Both sounds very similar to foreigners, but no one says the "literal meaning" of Kankoku is prison. Same logic here. In this article Jjokbari, it previously argued that the literal meaning of Jjokbal is pig's feet. I suspect that it has written by someone without much understanding of Korean, and that the contributor might noticed the similarity between two Romanized-words. One might argue that the pig's feet explanation didn't list in the dictionary because of its sensitivity. That might be the case. But I can assure other wikipedians that most Koreans never heard of this minor theory. If the theory I'm questioning is correct, then we need reliable sources. It would be very interesting for me to know a different meaning of this racial slur, but then I can't find any reliable source to back up the theory. As a side note, I left messages to the original contributors who have written this contents, asking them to join this discussion. PBJT (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one who added the information to the article. I just undid your removal, PBJT. I'll add two sources in ko to the article. The sources are these. [1] and [2]. Please do not remove information just because you do not know it. BTW, WP and WICT are not RS. Please do not use them as RS either. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Many Thanks for your opinion, Oda Mari. It's an interesting article that you provided here. First of all, let me be clear that I'm not trying to whitewashing or censoring the content. This is probably the last article that I wanted to be involved in an editing war. (and personally I really don't like the word per se.) When I mentioned the original contributor, I was referring to CaliforniaAlibaba and Ryoske. They didn't contributed in wikipedia for more than a year, but I left a message anyway. Of course, I left a message to you Oda Mari as well, since your opinion is valuable here. Second of all, what I'm trying to do here is correcting the inaccurate claim that the word's original meaning is from "Jokbal" or its literal meaning is "pig's feet". This is about a Korean word, so please bear with me for Korean dictionary like explanation. In the name for pig's feet/leg dish, the first syllable "Jok (족, 足)" means feet. The second syllable "Bal (발)" is native-Korean word for feet. These two same-meaning syllables have combined mistakenly to refers to a seemingly unrelated object, a pig's feet dish (족발). Thus, the syllable "Jok(足)" in itself doesn't refer to "pig", and it can refers to any animal's feet. (pig, cow or sheep.) Now, let's look at the syllable "Jjok (쪽)". The syllable alone means (1) page. (2) direction (3) side, part (4) a piece. It is a commonly used word when you say "page 161 (161 Jjok)" or "a piece of apple (사과 한 쪽)". Thus, when combined with "feet (발)", the literal meaning of the word is "쪽"(a piece, a side, a part) + "발" (feet), a sided foot or a pieced foot. That's how the combined word "Jjok"+"bal" means "cloven hoof" of cow or deer, because the animal's hoof is split. The lat syllable "--yi" (이), when added at the end of a word, makes a word to refer to a person: "Do-eum (도움, help or aid)" + "-- yi (이)" = "Do-eum-i" (a helper). To make a long story short, the word by word or syllable by syllable meaning of the word in question is "split-feet person", "person with a cloven like feet" or "a piece/side feet person". Last but not least, it isn't wikipedia's job to make a minor or unknown theory popular. Like you said, the Wikitionary cannot be a reliable source. But it simply reiterate what the standard Korean dictionary has listed for the word, and this Standard Korean Dictionary, a official SK government website, is the reliable source. (please note that, though, I added the wikitionary link because the standard Korean dictionary link doesn't directly show the word's definition.) Arguably even more reliable than a couple of google search results. And if you look up the word in question from the website, its definition is specifically mentioning "Geta" in Korean rendering of "게다" (see "엄지발가락과 나머지 발가락들을 가르는 게다를 신는다는 데서 온 말이다.") , not "Tabi". All in one, maybe we could probably include this unreliable explanation in the article as a side note at best. In any case, the official definition of the word should be presented first and be given more weight whenever it is available. (in this case, we DO have the definition.) When you say adverbs like "literal" or "original" when describing this word and yet you argue the meaning of "Jok" is "pig", this makes others wonder whether the contributor has a good knowledge of Korean language. For me, the original contributors like CaliforniaAlibaba and Ryoske don't sound like they're fluent in Korean. (no offence here.) However the word came into existence, the word itself is a strong racial slur. But to make the article even more accurate, unreliable minor theory must be removed from the article. I welcome anyone's opinion/suggestion here. --- PBJT (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Pigs also have split hooves (Wikipedia article Cloven hoof)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have already mentioned that "Jjok 쪽" + "Bal 발" could refers to any animal with split hoof like pig, cows and sheep. The correct word-to-word translation of "Jjok" + "Bal" is "Cloven hoof", not "pig". PBJT (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think geta has anything to do with the word. It makes me puzzled. Because people wear geta with bare foot in warm and hot seasons and that does not look like cloven-hoofed pig's foot as the five toes can be seen. See images. One of the sources I provided has images of 지카타비/jika-tabi, not geta. Do you have any source that says geta is the origin? If you cannot provide any, the geta information would be your WP:OR. Oda Mari (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

First the most questionable sentence is "the original meaning of the word ~~" part, which isn't true as I explained above. Second, I don't find any conflict if it is from wearing "Geta" or "Tabi", (since both footwear is same in the sense that they split thumb toe with others when a person wears it. both could have seen as separating toes to Koreans. But "Geta" is more widely known among Koreans, I guess.) My source is again the definition of dictionaries, and like I mentioned above, the definition is unambiguously mentioning "Geta" in its definition. So it isn't WP:OR: "thumb(엄지) toe(발가락)과 나머지 toes(발가락들)을 가르는 Geta (게다)를 신는다는 데서 온 말이다." If I add more details of quoted Korean sentence, it explains about "toes (발가락)", not "foot (발)". --- PBJT (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC) If I may add comments on the article about 지카타비/jika-tabi, this news paper isn't major news media in SK. Its quality probably could match some tabloid-papers in the West. --- PBJT (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"jjok" and "jok" in Korean language.

Let me reiterate my points here, since I want to clarify my arguments. A quotes from this version (Date: 24 April 2012) of the article's "Korean derogatory terms section".

... In slang meaning "pig's feet", this term is the most frequently used and strongest ethnic slur used by Koreans...

A. Literal meaning

Extended content

In both words "jjok-bal (쪽-발)" and "jok-bal (족-발)", the second syllable "-bal (-발)" is a native-Korean word for foot/feet. Although "jjok (쪽)" and "jok (족, 足)" is written similarly (double "jj" vs. single "j"), the two words have completely different meaning. "jok" is the Korean pronunciation for the Chinese character "足", which means foot or leg. When combined, literal meaning of "jok-bal (족-발)" would be "pedi-foot" in English, however it may sounds weird. (using Latin word "pedi-" for foot.) The word "jok-bal (족-발)" almost always refers to a cooked pig's feet dish, like "Ham" is a cooked meat from pig's leg. A matching word for "pig's feet" in Korean is "dwae-ji-bal (돼-지-발)", not "jok-bal (족-발)". "jjok (쪽)" is another native-Korean vocabulary for (1) page (2) direction (3) side (4) a piece. When combined with "-bal", "jjok-bal (쪽-발)" means cloven hoof or any animals with cloven hoof. Pigs also have cloven hoof, but the usage of "jjok-bal (쪽-발)" isn't restricted to pigs. Unlike in the West, a cloven hoof isn't related to the Satan in Korea (maybe in Asia.) and a neutral word. The word "jjok-bal (쪽-발)", however, is infrequently used since it could be confused a racial slur. (but it dose have its own meaning.) When a syllable "- i (-이)" is added at the end of a word, the whole word refers to a person. ("Doeum-i", a helper) Thus, when "-i (-이)" is added to "jjok-bal (쪽-발)", its word-by-word translation is "a person with cloven hoof-like feet".

B. Geta or Tabi

Extended content
The stereotypical image of Japanese in Korea is involved with wearing Geta. It could be comparable to the fact that Asian stereotype in the West is related to their slanted eyes. Tabi is lesser-known than Geta in Korea, let alone Jika-tabi. (notice that I mistakenly mentioned Tabi, instead of Geta earlier.) The Korean language institutes dictionary is unambiguously mentioning "Geta".

C. Sources and citations

Extended content

The "pig's feet" expression was added on 29 December 2005 version by User:Ryoske without any citation. In a separate page specifically dedicated to this racial slur, User: CaliforniaAliBaba created the document on 9 May 2007 with the following sentence: ... Jjokbari is generally accepted as literally meaning "pig's foot" (jjok being pig, bal being foot). ... User:CaliforniaAliBaba mistakenly assumed that "jjok" means "a pig" in Korean, which is wrong. The first cited news source by User:Oda Mari, Dailian-2008-09-21 was published in September 2008, well after 2005. The second cited news source, NewDaily-2010-04-26 was published in April 2010. When accessing Dailian-2008-09-21, it first shows "Malware detected warning". (which is not common for any well-established news media.) In Dailian-2008-09-21, emoticons(i.e. ^^ for Smiley face) or internet slang (i.e. "ㅋㅋㅋ" which is "LOL" for Korean.) have been used. In other words, Dailian-2008-09-21 isn't a professionally written article. It reads more like a personal trip log. In the article NewDaily-2010-04-26, the writer introduced the word's definition first, before starting a paragraph for "jok-bal". In both Dailian-2008-09-21 and NewDaily-2010-04-26, the authors didn't provide any proof/background for "jok-bal (족-발)" or "tabi" explanations. In the article NewDaily-2010-04-26, the tone of paragraph reads like delivering un-sourced rumor. (i.e. "... 살펴봅니다.(≈let's have a look another aspect of~)" and "... 닮았다네요.(≈it is said both look alike~.") Another sourced reference Constantine, Peter (1992). Japanese Street Slang. in Jjokbari isn't reliable source neither and cannot verifiable without the book from which pages it was quoted. The Standard Korean dictionary by Korean language institute shows the origin of word as "≒짜-개-발(jja-gae-bal)" or "split feet". }}

D. Final thoughts

1. I cannot emphasize enough that "Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors."
2. Whoever noticed the similarity in sound between "jjok-bal" and "jok-bal", the two separate words have evolved from different origin and meaning.
3. "jjok-bal" is originated from "jja-gae-bal", not "jok-bal". This added explanation probably started after the word's spelling have changed.
4. Since its addition in 2005, the origin or literal meaning of the word, which falsely claimed that it's from "pig's feet", has never been challenged or discussed.
5. The word/sentence in question is about definition of this specific word. Thus, Korean language institute dictionary's definition is most relevant and authoritative here.

--- PBJT (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I found the translation of 쪽바리 as ‘豚足’ (pig’s feet) on a Japanese website. I am very sorry if this is inaccurate; I should have been more thorough in my investigation.--Ryoske (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ryoske, and thanks for joining the discussion. I really appreciate your comments here, and you don't need to be sorry. When I raised this question, my goal was correcting inaccurate contents, but I understand that users can make mistakes and that it is a normal process of editing. --- PBJT (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

From the information provided so far, I think PBJT's points are quite reasonable. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid PBJT's post is an original reserch. I think the user should provide RS supporting his points. Ryoske and Benlisquare, please read the thread #3. Oda Mari (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

What I'm saying is not my own research. The word in question is a Korean vocabulary, and for this specific word, there do exist a definition for it in the dictionary. And I simply explained the Korean text ("... 엄지발가락과 나머지 발가락들을 가르는 게다를 신는다는 데서 온 말이다. ≒짜개발 ... ") in the dictionary as detailed as I can possibly document it. If you're trying to say the dictionary is flawed, that's another issue. But as afar as I'm concerned, the Korea language institute's dictionary is more reliable than tabloid-paper articles. ::: From the beginning I suspect that original contributors had confused of the word "jok (足)" as a pig, and I have documented that it is actually the case. This obvious error (to a native Korean speaker) haven't corrected for years. And don't get me wrong: I'm not arguing this word is not a strong racial slur. It is. What I'm questioning is this English translation of a Korean text, which clearly made a mistake in saying that both "jjok" and "jok" means "pigs" in Korean. ::: As for the Tabi vs. Geta explanations, I have said that typical image of Japanese in Korea was related to wearing "geta". You might think that is far from the fact, but that's how most racial stereotypes are: ignorant about other culture or their people. --- PBJT (talk) 09:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC) ::: And please be specific which part of my argument is WP:OR by referring to the section (A,B,C,D) and its sentence number. That would be helpful with communicating each other, and that was the reason why I reiterated the whole section by numbering sentence by sentence. --- PBJT (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Translation error

This is my third and last attempt to convince other users and to make a consensus on the problem. And I hope anyone reading this talk page could look at the problem this way: This is a simple translation error from Korean text to English (or any other language.)

• Anyone with basic understanding of Chinese, Japanese Kanji or Korean Hanja can tell that 足 means foot/feet.
• Translating "足-발 (jok-bal)" to "豚足" or "pig's feet" is accurate, since the word refers to a "pig's feet dish".
  (though its literal translation would be "足-足" or "pedi-foot".)
• Translating "쪽-발 (jjok-bal)" to "豚足" or "pig's feet" is inaccurate, since "쪽 (jjok)" has its own meaning and doesn't have matching Hanja. It's more than just adding extra "j" to "jok-bal". In fact, "jjok (쪽)" alone is a commonly used word which means "page". (i.e. page 161 or 161 jjok)
• In any case, neither "jok (足)" nor "jjok" clearly has nothing to do with pigs (豚).

I welcome anyone to point out which part of my argument is WP:OR. Otherwise, I'm going to correct the error which is simply wrong, and I think I tried my best to explain why this is the case. --- PBJT (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the question of comparing Apple and Orange. If I'm trying to convince others that apple is better than orange or vise versa, then it would be my POV or OR. But I'm trying to say that Apple and Orange are different, although both are fruits. --- PBJT (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of the paragraph relating to "21st century"

I removed the 21st century paragraph because it was ill informed and not noteworthy. Just because there were a few sickos on youtube who made comments referencing the 2011 Tōhoku tsunami disaster to anything related to 70 year old World War II issues doesn't mean it's worthy of a wikipedia entry, furthermore just because someone with a blog or publishing ability on a website sees these comments and decides to write an article about it purely shows bad journalistic and investigative qualities on their behalf. I'm going to remove it again and would kindly ask that it not be repurposed. --71.94.7.228 (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It's notable enough to be mentioned in a third party reference. It has also been covered in many other third party sources as well, further enforcing its notability. Furthermore, it's more than just "a few sickos on youtube", the number of people involved is much larger than you're portraying it as. The immaturity and irrationality of a bunch of people on the internet is a prime example of how discriminatory sentiments can occur. Remember, things like this don't necessarily have to be "mainstream" viewpoints - antisemitism still exists today, but it isn't the mainstream population that shares these sentiments. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to be understanding that it is simply a minority of internet trolls who used the hate of that disaster as some kind of karmic reference to paid dues for Pearl Harbor. It is not note worthy, and I suggest you take an especially pristine amount of care in re-reading the paragraph I posted in this talk section and fully understand each and every word I carefully chose to state what needed to be stated. --71.94.7.228 (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I reinstated it before I knew there was a discussion here. As Benlinsqure says, it's notable because Huffington Post decided it's notable. That's how Wikipedia works--we don't make our own decisions, we defer to reliable sources. Now, I suppose that someone could argue that it should be removed on WP:NOTNEWS or WP:UNDUE reasons...except for the fact that this actually happens all the time. It happened several times in the Olympics (before and after the Japanese soccer team played the US). It happened after the tsunami itself. Sea Shepherd and their associates raise the spectre of Japanese nationalism on occasion. And, of course, it's a key undercurrent to the rhetoric surrounding the 2012 Chinese protests. We can keep discussing the matter; I could, possibly, be persuaded...but at the moment, I think it should stand. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the Huffington Post article makes the content notable: their establishment does not have the same policies on notability that Wikipedia has, and documenting every small outbreak of anti-Japanese sentiment that is sensationalized in a major online publication would be exhausting and unnecessary. Huffington Post does take the discrimination seriously, but never suggests that it was not merely done for attention by a handful of people. If it has indeed been covered in many other third party sources as Benlisquare stated, then I recommend that be reflected in the references. The analogy to antisemitism is fair, but we don't document specific acts or outbursts of antisemitism unless they are extremely notable. My vote is for deletion. Coppaar (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Huffington Post source article directly references social media posts in effort to prove a non existent point that there was public acknowledgement of anti-Japanese sentiment being prevalent in any notable fraction of the public regarding the 2011 tsunami disaster. It was bad journalism to the say the least, but to take it further - it's an abhorrent journalistic source when taking in the fact that even the article says "Some people" as in, "Some people think the disaster was payback for Pearl Harbor," while then giving only a few examples of social networking comments. <BLP violation redacted by Qwyrxian>--71.94.7.228 (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, 71, that last post is a WP:BLP violation--you're making negative, unsubstantiated claims about a living person (the author of the HufPost article). I've removed that portion of your comment. Don't make such comments again or you will be blocked. Second, your claims are unsourced and specious. HufPost is, generally, a reliable source. You can't just reject it because you don't like the conclusions. Coppaar, we don't require that sources have our notability requirements--all we require is that the reliable sources consider it important enough to report on. But, you are correct that it would be better if we had more sources; I won't revert to put it back in at the moment. I'll look for sources, and if I find any, re-add it with additional sources. If I don't find any, I may still consider taking this through further dispute resolution.

I've added info about the similar events following the 2012 Olympics soccer final, with 2 more references, and restored the previous part (though I rewrote it for brevity since I added other info). I believe this is sufficient evidence to show that SNS have become a new venue for anti-Japanese racist rhetoric. Note that no one is saying that it was widespread, or a majority...but no one is claiming that for many of the rest of the claims on this page. While 71 is correct that we don't want to document every minor piece of anti-Japanese racism here, if a phenomenon is widespread enough to be covered in multiple independent RS, it's important enough to be covered here. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I've had just about enough of your shithead behavior. I said nothing wrong with my comment, and my comment was only factual. If you want to debate what is and isn't worthy of a goddamned encylopedic entry, then I'm sure you're better off arguing with a wall. Shame on you for censoring and removing content of a TALK-PAGE ARTICLE COMMENT. Thankfully you can't edit or destroy the page-history, so people can see just exactly what you removed and how simple you are. For fucks sake, SNS is not a reliable source, and any news outlet that believes so intentionally delves into bad journalistic endeavors. The article is being removed, deal with it dude. Grow up and acknowledge certain facts, and I'm going to end the conversation at that because I've already spent enough time trying to use the simplest of English sentences to outline and debate this idea with full clarity, yet you still can't understand. You want a BLP violation? You've got autism you cold retarded fuck. (By the way, if you don't think a picture of an asian man along with the author's name being "Gil Asakawa" would certainly clarify that the author is indeed Asian, you're simply completely wrong in likely every regard of life itself that requires any sense of observation skills --71.94.7.228 (talk) 05:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

71 has made some valid points. However, I would propose to move the content of the "21st century" section to Anti-Japanese sentiment in the United States article as the comments on the social networks were obviously from the individuals in some U.S. regions and do not represent a national anti-Japanese sentiment. STSC (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even notice that article. I have no problem moving this information to that article, as it does seem like a better fit there (although part of me worries that the articles are too duplicative in general...but that's a much larger discussion). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the 1944 poll

Regarding this removal,, I would like to make a few points. First of all, it's inappropriate to be removing referenced content simply because it might "look bad", as this constitutes whitewashing of information.

Regarding the edit summary "polls like this are utterly meaningless. Knowing myself I'm quite sure I would have sarcastically answered that I was in favor", I'd like to strongly disagree - polls like these are quite useful at gauging public opinion and attitudes at the time. The comment "I would sarcastically answered (yes)" isn't really that helpful, since as a person of the 21st Century, you hardly share any sentiments to people who had actually lived back then, and so you cannot make such an assumption that what you would do would also be likely for people back then. Keep in mind that during that time, the general mood and anger amongst the public within the United States was significantly influenced by events such as Pearl Harbor and Bataan. Furthermore, the domestic US media was also responsible for stirring up emotions in an effort to maintain public support for the war, and this would have had a profound impact on people's opinions. It isn't far-fetched to say that this anger would be reflected in how they would respond to such polls, or even actions that people take. I'm sure you would have heard of incidents where US army soldiers sent home Japanese human skulls as souvenirs, or cases of atrocities on the Japanese home islands committed by disgruntled US soldiers after the war. Hence, the reasoning that a person of today would participate sarcastically in an opinion poll is rather moot, as it has the major flaw of making the assumption that attitudes stay static throughout time.

Finally, per WP:BRD, I'd strongly suggest that people take the time to properly discuss the issues at hand here on the talk page. --benlisquare_T•C•E 20:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Come up with a relevant *explanation*, rather than rambling on about different things. Nobody wanted all Japanese to be "exterminated", as I'm sure you like to think Americans are evil. Not everyone is dead honest in polls. I'm sure about 10% of Americans would be "in favor" of painting the white house pink. 69.171.160.132 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

First off I think the information in the poll is useful. It talks about the discrimination towards Japanese Americans at the time. However, it should be noted that it does not reflect the general American public today which is what I think the argument is getting at. As long as you mention it as being for that particular time period I see no problem with the informations inclusion.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

No one wanted the Japanese to be exterminated. It was their expression of hatred against Japanese people, influenced by Nazi Japan. There needs to be a disclaimer. 69.171.160.132 (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all seriously did you not study history. Japan were not the Nazis. Germany and most of Europe was. Secondly the wars going on don't matter. Anti-Middle Eastern sentiment today is still anti-Middle Eastern sentiment despite what happened in 9/11. Please do us a favor and go read about WWII. Then please go read a little about discrimination and privilege and you might understand what is being said.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you really that dense? Or are you being condescending? I can't tell. What I just used is what is known as a metaphor. Now go read about it. 69.171.160.132 (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Well either way the proper sources are cited and it is clear that there was anti-Japanese sentiment. If you would like to contest this feel free to call in an administrator.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

My god, pay attention. I'm not saying that there was not racism. Americans were rabid racists, but not GENOCIDAL. 69.171.160.132 (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

No one said they were genocidal. It said clearly that 13% believed the Japanese should be genocided. No implimintation was used. There are a ton of Americans who think LGBT people should be genocided. Do you want to deny that also. After 9/11 there was talk about Middle Eastern genocide. The poll is very clearly from a reliable source. It is not saying the United States commited genocide on the Japanese people its saying 13% believed it should.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

People don't take ridiculous polls like this seriously. This is why it's hard to tell how many Russians like Stalin, for example. It's not impossible for people to be sarcastic. Statistics like this are not perfect and irrefutable. And you know full well. You are anti-American and like to think Americans are evil. 69.171.160.132 (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

That's quite a claim. I am American. Acknowledging racism does not make me Anti-American. America has oppressed many different groups of people including my people. Please though if you really want to debate the reliability of the source please call in an administrator. They will look over to see if the source is accurate. I personally can not test it at this point however I strongly encourage you to test it as a reliable source. It could only improve Wikipedia no matter which way you find.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of obnoxious anti-American Americans. And you are frustrating as hell to talk to. You keep going way off track and have still not addressed my points. 69.171.160.132 (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You're point is you don't feel the source is good enough and therefore that it shouldn't be in the article. Good, then challenge it. Bring it to an administrator on the Reliable source Noticeboard That is the only way to get it taken down. Now you may either do that, find another reliable source that disputes it and then you can bring up the dispute in the article or drop the topic. In short your three options 1. Reliable source noticeboard 2. Find contradicting reliable source use to talk about dispute in article or 3. Drop topic. And one final note your calling me Anti-American is immature. If what I'm saying makes me Anti-American it would certainly make you Anti-Japanese. Both Anti-Americanism and American Exceptionalism including Americentrism are racism. I strongly abhor racism. If what you are saying is true I might be Anti-American but you would be both an American Exceptionalist as well as Anti-Japanese so do one of the three things I stated or grow up and leave this article alone.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Something is wrong with you. I've never talked to someone oblivious with such scattered thoughts. 69.171.160.132 (talk) 06:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop arguing about your opinions about America, Japan, racism, and opinion polls. None of this matters at all for a Wikipedia article--we care what reliable sources say. There are two specific reasons why we might consider removing the info: 1) the source is not reliable per WP:RS. 2) The source is reliable, but the information isn't important enough to include per WP:UNDUE. Now, normally I'd be inclined to say that a single opinion poll from 60 years ago conducted by a single source is not particularly important. But the fact that a reliable academic thought it was important enough to discuss in a book makes me lean back towards inclusion. But I could be swayed.

So, the RS issue is a policy based one, that can, as stated above, be discussed at WP:RSN. The undue one, however, is a matter of editorial judgment and warrants further discussion here. Given that an academic cites it and considers it important, does that sway the IP towards keeping it? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

To the IP editor: You keep mentioning how you want to have a disclaimer inserted, both here and in edit summaries. We have a policy page at WP:No disclaimers that specifically forbids the use of disclaimers within Wikipedia. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I am at a loss for words.... None of you has any scintilla of a clue what I have been saying this whole time. It is unbelievable how pigheaded people can be. 69.171.160.132 (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

We heard you we just don't care about your personal opinion on polls. Its irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia not an editorial of a magazine. As has been said if you don't think its a reliable source please take it to the noticeboard.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Let me try to see if I understand: you think that many, if not most or all, opinion polls are flawed, because people don't answer them seriously (based, it seems, in large part, on the fact that you yourself don't answer them seriously). It is certainly your right to hold that opinion. However, Wikipedia doesn't deal in the opinions--it deals in the comments of reliable sources; and it is of course the case that scholars create, use, and cite opinion polls all of the time. If a reliable source considers the poll to be important that is an indication that we should also consider it important. It's not a certainty, however; the specific source in question is obviously much more narrow than our article, and so we could still argue that even though the poll was important to the detailed academic book, it's not important enough for a more general encyclopedia article on the subject. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It is my opinion that Wikipedia must have a balanced NPOV. 69.171.160.132 (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, if multiple people have made it clear that they disagree with you, does that make everyone else the evil "pigheaded" boogeyman, or does that mean that you should reconsider your position as merely one opinion out of many? We don't necessarily write what is "right", we write what is verifiable amongst reliable sources. Regarding your point about NPOV, I too could argue that whitewashing information because you don't like it also constitutes a POV problem. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

---

To IP user, this is the final warning. You have already violated WP:3RR. Please note "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.". If you revert again, you will be range blocked from editing.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Phoenix's added citation

Phoenix7777 added a new scholarly article about American anti-Japanese opinion. The IP removed it, another editor reinserted it, IP re-removed, then I re-added...but I re-removed it myself. I agree with Phoenix and Rainbox that that information belongs in the article, but we can't put it where Phoenix put it (unless I'm misunderstanding the source). Putting it there makes it sound like Goldhagen is specifically commenting on the 1944 poll in question; my understanding is that he's making a more general claim about American anti-Japanese sentiment. Putting the two statements right next to each other seems to imply a connection to me, which then violates WP:SYNTH. So I agree that the new Goldhagen info should be included, but just that it needs to go somewhere else, or be phrased differently. Any suggestions? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Goldhagen wrote in his book:[3]

In December 1944, in response to the public opinion survey question "What do you think we should do with Japan as a country after the war?" 13 percent of American chose "kill all Japanese." So it is no surprise that Americans perpetrated and supported mass slaughters - Tokyo's firebombing and then nuclear incinerations - in the name of saving American lives, and of giving the Japanese what they richly deserved.

"Putting the two statements right next to each other" is not my edit but the author's original. Although there are more reasons described above the sentence, my edit hardly violates WP:SYNTH.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I did, in fact, misunderstand. The info does, then, go right there. Sorry for the back-and-forth. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

That section should mention that by several years into the war, a very significant number of Americans were convinced that the Japanese "set no value on human life" in any way that Americans could understand, and that the fact that the Japanese set no value on human life was an indication that the Japanese were profoundly culturally alien (i.e. shared few American values, and overall had very extremely little in common with Americans). There was certainly abundant generalized hostility toward wartime antagonists, and free-floating racism, but much Anti-Japanese sentiment in the United States at that time was based on specific incidents which persuaded Americans that the Japanese did not accept internationally-accepted rules of war, were aggressively indifferent or hostile to all humanitarian concerns, and did not follow any moral or ethical code that Americans could understand -- in short, that the Japanese "set no value on human life". AnonMoos (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Anti japanese sentiment in the Philippines

I have a dispute with another wiki user regarding a citation used to support his claim that hatred towards the Japanese in general is prevalent in the Philippines to which i disagree. Balisong5 (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the discussion. I'd hope far better sources can be easily found, but working with what we have, I don't see how the changes are supported by the sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

User Ronz holds the position " Regardless, many Filipinos still harbor hatred toward the Japanese as well due to the comfort women issue and U.S./Japanese military ties. This hatred is not as huge as in North and South Korea and China, but it is still strong." Yet nothing in the following article that is purported to support his stance can be seen as valid evidence. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/06/30/national/wartime-sex-victims-leftists-protest-growing-philippines-japan-military-ties/#.Vyz4P4QrI1J I on the other hand stand by with the following edit change, "Still, there exists a certain segment of the population who harbor strong resentment toward the Japanese government due to the comfort women issue and U.S./Japanese military ties" which I believe would be more truthful in assesment of the reference in question. The article starts with the opener "Victims of Japanese military wartime sex abuses in the Philippines and leftist groups protested in front of the Japanese Embassy in Manila last week to denounce growing military ties between the Philippines and Japan as the two nations held naval drills in the South China Sea." Nothing here or further in the article states that hatred toward the Japanese as a whole amongst Filipinos is prevalent or strong. Balisong5 (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Duly noted. [ [Balisong5]] Balisong5 (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to include the following content. "Also, Filipinos hold much more friendly sentiments toward Japan compared to other Asian ethnicities such as the Chinese or Koreans despite having been similarly victimized by Japan during World War II" I'm basing this on an article passage in citation 39," But for a people wounded by Japan like no other in Southeast Asia, Filipinos are now very friendly toward Japan - a phenomenon that baffles many historians and sociologists considering that, in countries like China and South Korea, anti-Japanese sentiment still smolders and occasionally flares." Balisong5 Balisong5 (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe that's already covered earlier in the same paragraph of the article. --Ronz (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I looked through the article history a bit, and it seems the paragraph was only recently changed [4]

The paragraph has otherwise been stable for a long time. The paragraph was introduced 08:18, 26 August 2008. It was only slightly changed by Dec 2009, little more by June 2013.

I have reverted to the stable version, as the subsequent changes have similar problems to the ones we're now discussing, and the recent changes appear to be at the crux of the current dispute. --Ronz (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)