Talk:Gaijin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Untitled

Revamp. I switched gaijin and gaikokujin as suggested in the previous (gaikokujin) talk page. I propose that this page focus solely on PC argument.FWBOarticle

Bit of copyediting to focus on political correctness issue. I believe that Political Correctness section can be slimed down considerably. FWBOarticle

Language

I stated that short term visitor from china refered to as gaijin. One example is gaijin hanzai (foreingers' crime). I think popular conception of gaijin criminals are Chinese gangs. FWBOarticle

Merge with Japan / Japanese cultural identity?

I'm suprised this has a dedicated article. Wouldn't it make more sense to be part of a greater Japanese section, such as culture? Who other than foreigners who have lived in, or do live in, Japan are going serach on this topic? The word has no meaning oustide Japan and as such seems to me to be something which should be incorporated into a larger Japanese section. Thoughts? Barryvalder 08:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The relationship between Japan and the "outside world" has been and remains complex at both the societal and individual level and while this article could use quite a bit of cleaning up I think it already shows its potential. As for "gaijin" having no meaning outside of Japan ... the word gets 1.64 million hits on the English language Google, has a handful of corresponding Wiki-articles in other languages, and is a part of the social identity for the nontrivial number of current and former expats in Japan ... I think the article deserves to stay right where it is. CES 13:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I do believe there's room for an article somewhere in here, focusing on foreign issues in Japan, but it shouldn't really be here. The word itself should fit in as a section of the greater article.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 

I think this would work better incorporated into a broader article on Japanese cultural/racial identity. Judging by the links that brought me first to this article, I was expecting something more along those lines, and not an essay about why the word 'gaijin' is or isn't racist. And right now it seems pretty strongly biased to the POV that it isn't. --TPS Report 11:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue has its own controversy. Plus, it is much easier to find in search. Vapour

The book by James Clavell

Would it make sense to add a link to Gai-Jin (book) to the article? I would think that some people want to get to it instead of this. Possibly one of those "x is also a book" style things at the top? I don't know where to put it, otherwise I'd go ahead... Ealex292 04:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I did as you suggested and added a disambiguation link using Template:Dablink. See WP:D for more information. Dforest 12:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

gaijin-impolite?!!

This is a fictious reconstruction of japanese grammer to slant the argument. In japanese, there are various useage of grammatical change which is absent in English. Most notable formal usage are polite form (Sonkei go), humble form (Kenjyou go) and attentive form (Teinei go). Only way this gaijin-gaikokujin disambiguation can fit into is attentive form not polite form. It is fine to state that Westerners feel the usage is offensive. It is not o.k. to reconstruct Japanese grammer so that such POV are presented as fact. Vapour

"gaijin kusai". I once come across "gaikokujin kusai". I guess it is not a derogetory usage according to whoever wrote this POV. Vapour

Who wrote this? Psuedo Understanding of Japanese grammer is spinned into making Gaijin=derogetory as fact. Vapour

When being a foreinger become a specific reference to physical trait?

Deleted

"Some non-Japanese also object to the use of gaijin as a form of address (as in gaijin-san). It is common in Japanese to address others by title rather than name. For example, customers are customarily addressed as O-kyaku-sama ("honourable customer"); a person who works in a bookshop might be addressed as Honya-san (Mr. Bookseller); a butcher might be addressed as Nikuya-san (Miss Butcher), and so on. However, addressing others by a physical trait is not usually seen as polite. For example, it would not be acceptable, in most cases, to address someone as Debu-san (Mr. Fatty) or Megane-san (Ms. Eyeglasses). "

Debu is not polite whether it is Debu or Debu-san because Debu is a derogetory reference for someone who is fat. Adding san only emphasise sarcasm. Megane-chan can be used as a reference for cuteness, for example, Arale Norimaki. Gaijin-san being rude is a POV which work only if one presuming that gaijin is projective one way or another. Vapour

Gee, I don't have objection to westerners to express their POV as long as it come with proper attribution. I'm not so happy with westerners reconstructing japanese grammer or usage or that making fictious comparision to suggest that English usage of the word foreinger is never racist even in certain context. Believe it or not, I just watched an episode of "How I met your mother". One of jokes is about this Korean Elvis getting his nuts kicked. Is Korean now a derogetory reference? Vapour

Recent changes

I have reverted several recent changes since a large amount of information was removed from the article with no discussion, and since the editor's attempt to add neutrality seems to have made the article more non-neutral. Exploding Boy 17:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You must discuss each edit on its merit. I have explicitly made argument that (1)the prvious edit contain false information about Japanese formal speech (Keigo) and (2) Debu-san/Megane-san is not correct analogy. Your claim that "Too much information removed with no discussion." is contradicted by the existence of comments left by me in this regard. Statement akin to "all these edit are not NPOV" does not constitute an argument at all. Feel free to modify the edit if you feel it is not NPOV. Feel free to recover information which you feel relevant, which I obviously did not think to be the case. I'm happy to engage in constructive debate/edit. Revert in this instance is not a valid wikipedia edit, IMO. Vapour

Usage

Streamlined the section with more fuller explanation of Japanese Formal gramatical form. Diambiguation of Japanese as a reference to someone's non Japanese nationality and ethinicity. Vapour

More on recent changes

I've changed several of the recent edits by Vapour. They represent a non-neutral point of view in several cases, as well as an apparent lack of knowledge. I suggest you see the Japanese Wikipedia article, specifically:

グループ意識の強い日本社会というコンテキストにおいて、「外人」という呼称は単なる外国籍の人間をさすだけでなく、文字通り外の人、他人あるいは余所者といったニュアンスを含み、さらには「enemy」（敵）も含意する差別用語であるとし、この表現を疎む人がいる（「外国人」の略語ではない「外人」には本来「仲間以外の人、外部の人」という意味もある）。また、国籍上は日本人であるのにもかかわらず外貌ゆえに「外人」と呼ばれ続ける西洋諸国出身の日本人やハーフと呼ばれる立場にある人には、自分達を「外人」と呼ぶことは中傷であるとして、この表現を使わないようにと訴えている。

しかし、日本に住む日本人が「外人」という言葉を使用する際には、侮蔑的、排他的な意味合をもって使うのはむしろまれであると考えられている。実際、「外人」という呼びかたを嫌う外国人にこの呼称を使用したことを難じられると、理解できずに当惑する人が多い。それは、この言葉がこれまで無批判に使用されてきたことにも起因する。一方、海外滞在経験のある日本人には、この語の持つニュアンスを理解し、使用を控える傾向がみられる。過去、日本の空港などでは「外国人」を意味する英単語として「alien」を使用していた。しかし映画「エイリアン」公開の影響もあり、「alien」にあたる「外人」という日本語使用にも批判が集まった。現在は「alien」は「foreigner」という単語に言い換えられ、同時に日本の主要メディアでも、ポリティカル・コレクトネスへの配慮から「外人」ではなく「外国人」を使用するようになっている（表現の自主規制）。もっとも、これを言葉狩りの典型とみる批判的な立場もあるが、この批判は「外人」と名指された経験のないものからの意見であり、当事者への配慮が欠けているというの批判もまたある。

I also removed long explanations of Japanese grammar, which weren't necessary, restored some valid information that was removed, and took out all the long, unneeded information on derogatory words in Japanese for Chinese and Korean people.

Exploding Boy 03:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Your pulled content from Japanese wikipedia without providing translation. This page is not just for the people who can read Japanese. So until you provide translation, I will ignore it.

As I have stated previously, simply saying that something is NPOV without giving any specific is not a valid edit or argument. If you claim that I lack knowledge in Japanese, then you must specify the information which is inaccurate. You have fail to do so. And for this reason, your argument has no actual content so far.

Most importantly, you have elimiated explanation of Japanese formal form only when more detailed explanation (whic I provided) has indicated that the previous argument is invalid. That is a cenceorship of information not allowed here. Of course, you can argue/edit on the ground that my edit on japanese formal form is incorrect which you so far fail to provide any argument. And it is not NPOV to elminiate the subject itself. Vapour

It appear that we are heading for edit dispute. For this reason, I will add explanation for every edit I make so that the debate/edit will be specific. You are free to disagree and re-edit my edit if you give valid reason which is specified under wikipedia policy. Vapour

First of all, I provided the Japanese for you. You are a native speaker, aren't you? Why on earth would you need a translation?

Second, it would be far more effective to discuss changes here on the talk page rather than in edit summaries.

Exploding Boy 04:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"gaijin the least polite"

"In Japanese, the shortening of long words is common, though longer forms are usually considered to be more formal. Thus, the construction gaikoku no kata (外国の方, roughly "a person from another country") is the most polite, followed by gaikokujin, with gaijin being the shortest, the most casual, and thus the least polite form. There are subtle differences in nuance in the choice of phrasing."

Fictitiou and incorrect reconstruction of Japanese language to advance gaijin=projetive POV as a fact. In Japanese, gramaticall neutral form is considered as inpolite in case of direct (i.e. non third person) social interaction. For example, if I greet someone (say "Yamamoto" in this instance), saying " Konnichiwa Yamamoto." (Hello Yamamoto) that would be rude because I did not add "san" (Mr/Mrs/Miss) or "sama" (Sir/Maddame). Socially it is acceptable to call someone without san or sama only if that someone is your friend or your inferior in social setting. For this reason, "gaijin no kata" "gaikokujin no kata" "gaikoku no kata" are all keigo reference while more "socially neutral" reference is "gaijin no hito" "gaikokujin no hito" or "gaikoku no hito", followed by gramatically neutral and hence socially blant/rude expression "gaijin" or "gaikokujin". However, it is o.k. if reference is in third person context. So if someone want to say "where is that foreigner?" "ano gaikokujin/gaijin dokoni imasuka?" then it is not required to use "sama", "kata" or "hito".

By deliberately omitting the fact that the word "gaijin" can be used in keigo (polite form), the previous edit make it appear that gaijin is rude/inpolite. Most incorrect part of the edit is to imply that just because something is expressed in longer form it become politer. That is factually incorrect. It is the "type" of reference, not the "length" of reference. Gaikokujin or gaijin is both rude without san/sama/kata reference. At this point, only valid statement from linguistic point of view is that "gaijin is more colloquial expression". Vapour

I think you're deliberately muddying the waters here. We're not talking about third person context here! Which is politer: "Sumisu-san, gaikokujin desu ka" or "Sumisu-san, gaijin desu ka" ? Exploding Boy 04:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It appear that, your view is that anything which is not related to this single issue of political correctness is not relevant. That is the argument you can raise in "controversy" section. You can delete information which is not relevant to controversy surrounding gaijin in "controversy" section. In "usage" section, given the fact that reference to gaikokujin/gaijin without kata/hito can be offensive in non third person context but not offensive in third person content make the information relevant.

As of "Sumisu-san gaijin desuka", this statement make no sense because it is asking something obvious. More accurate one may be "Sumisu-san wa gaijin desukara kono shorui ha kakanakute iidesuyo" (Because Sumisu-san is foreigner, you don't have to fill this form). Anyway, your argument is circular. I would not use above expression simply because I know you get offended even though, from the perspective of Japanese grammer, there is no valid argument. (Feel free to demonstrate against it by giving verifiable argument.). As a matter of Japanese etiquette, I'm simply be sensitive to your feeling. However, I know another guy (a black dude from u.s.) who is not offended so I would use above expression. Just because someone feel that way does not prove that such feeling is justified on the ground of Japanese grammer. Proper context of presentation of information that Japanese avoid using the gaijin expression is "People will avoid using gaijin if the person feel offended with the use of gaijin. And they will not avoid using gaijin if the person does not feel offended by the word gaijin." Again this information does not prove your POV that the word gaijin is projetive in itself. Vapour

?? I'm confused. First you say that you wouldn't use "gaijin" in certain situations becuase you know it can be offensive, then that there's no reason to think that the word can be offensive. Look, it says right in the article that gaijin is not grammatically pejorative; that doesn't mean that it can't be offensive. It says right in the article that context is everything. It says right in the article that some people don't find the word offensive and use it to refer to themselves. What's the problem here? Exploding Boy 05:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I indicated to you that gaijin is offensive to foreigners who find it offensive while it is not offensive to those foreigners who doesn't find it offensive. In this case, only valid context is that it is considered to be rude because someone feel that way. Then such POV should be attributed to these group of foreinger who feel that way. It also important to include information as to why they feel that way. For example, i don't think you disagree with this fact that most japanese now find use of gaijin in front of foreinger to be inpolite solely on the fact that foreigner say they don't like it. At the same time, these japanese are still quite clueless as to why. I have no problem with edit which give "correct" example and explanation of usage of gaijin which is offensive. The previous edit had biased edit even to the point of reinventing Japanese grammer. Just because something is short or colloquial does not amount to something being inpolite in Japanese or in English. Vapour

Once again, I'm slightly confused. Look at the Controversy section. It covers all of these issues. Also, read the excerpt from the Japanese article I posted above. It covers this particular issue in some depth. At this point, though, I'm not even sure anymore which particular sentence you're objecting to. Exploding Boy 06:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Who say it covers all of these issue? You? Please stop (POV)-forking out content which belong to controversy section if it belong to usagage section. Vapour

I make my argument clear. I do not object to edit which say in certain circumstance, usage of gaijin is rude. However, the edit insuniating that shorter form in inpolite is incorrect. Therefore, i will remove that edit and replace with correct edit which explain that it cannot be the case. You keep deleting information which doesn't suit your agenda. Vapour

Sorry, but your last series of edits is completely non-neutral. Right in the beginning section you claim that only non-Japanese people see the word "gaijin" as offensive. This is patently and demonstrably untrue. I'm reverting to a previous, more neutral version. Exploding Boy 16:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Shortened expression in Usage section

This section is about usage of gaijin, a shortened expression of gaikokujin. If one feel that information is incorrect, fine, modify it. It is not NPOV to remove the entire tpoic in regard to usage of shortened expression in Japanese just because it doesn't fit into "controversy" section. Therefore, "Engine Stall"->"Ensuto" reference will be restored. Vapour

Shortened words->informal?

I can pull load of examples in which shortened Japanese word is used in official and formal setting. Even in English, there are similar usage such as NATO, DVD. Words get shortened because it is more convenient. This does not mean it is informal. Therefore, I will delete the reference that gaijin is informal than gaikokujin just because it is shortened expression. Only valid statement is that gaijin is more colloquial (because it is shorter). Vapour

It amounts to exactly the same thing. Which construction does the media invariably use? Gaikokujin, not gaijin. Exploding Boy 04:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No, the argument is not just gaijin but the usage of shortend word in general japanese grammer. And in this specific topic, the question is whether shortend word (ryakugo) is used in formal setting. And answer is Yes.

Moreover, you argument in reference to the media is incorrect. For example, Kichigai (Crazy) are a hosokinshiyogo (word banned in broadcasting) in Japan because it is claimed that the usage of the term offend people who are mentally ill. So now, the word "carzy" cannot be used in broadcasting and have to be replaced with "seishin shikkan" (mentally ill). I believe many westerners would think this is bizarre. To argue that Crazy is projetive gramatically because it is a hosokinshiyogo is to miss the fact that, in Japan, something can be banned in usage simply by the fact that someone claim it to be offensive irrespective of whether such claim has merit. I'm not disputing and have never censored an edit refering to the fact that some people believe the word gaijin is projetive. But to insist that gaijin is projetive gramatically because (1) someone think so or (2) Japanese media bans it because someone think so is not a correct argument. Vapour

No, we're talking about the word gaijin here. As to your comments about kichigai vs seishin shikkan, I really don't know what you mean. In the English-language media it would be rare to encounter the word "crazy" in reference to a person's mental state, and far more likely to encounter "mentally ill." Nobody is trying to say that gaijin is only and always pejorative, but that fact that people both use it and perceive it as such is telling. Exploding Boy 05:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm merely pointing out that your argument that gaijin is not used in media therefore it is projetive does not have good logic. You miss a important point. In Japanese media, the word "crazy" cannot appear in any context not just in reference to someone who is mentally ill. "You are crazy" or "You are nuts" is not a politically correct expression in Japanese media. In Japan, an advocacy group claiming that they don't like it is enough for a word to get (voluntarilly) censored out. Whether such claims have good argument is beside the point.

And I do agree that some people (you for one, i suppose) perceive it as such while I don't agree that people use it as such. If that is true, it is very hard to explain the existence of expression such as "gaijin-san". I have no problem with edit which show that in certain context or in usage, the word "gaijin" can be rude. On the other hand, so far, edit advocating the view that the gaijin is rude in itself tend to have fault in understanding of Japanese grammer or fault in logic, usually confusing usage/context with grammer itself. When an example of gaijin being projetive is given, I usually switch it with gaikokujin and see if it is still rude. And invariably, it is. Vapour

Ok, I don't want to get too deeply involved in this particular discussion because I think we're talking at cross purposes here.

As far as I can tell, we agree on at least some points, which is good. I'm not trying to suggest that the word "gaijin" is grammatically pejorative; neither is the article, as far as I can see. What's important, in my view, is context. But if you think that people don't (ever) use "gaijin" as a pejorative, then, well, I don't know what else to say. Exploding Boy 06:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want something similar, few african american now object to being refered as black. And whatever the logic of the argument, people might avoid using the word black in front of the person who feel that way. And some, for the purpose of upseting this person, might refer him as a black. I do not object to the edit stating many westerners do not like being refered as gaijin instead of gaikokujin. So far, your argument is that you or many foreigner or Japanese media think as such . This fact is not disputed. Question is for what reason and this should be explained in wikipedia. In case of japanese media, the reason is simply because some people don't like it and they don't want to offend anyone. So it all boil down to why foreigner find it offensive. If the reason is "because", that is fine in term of wikipedia but one shouldn't get upset if it is written as such. As far as Japanese usage in term of grammer or language goes, gaijin is not projetive. If you disagree, please site relevant japanese grammer not just about ryakugo but also in term of olite/humble/attentive form. Vapour

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say. You keep saying that the term "gaijin" is not grammatically pejorative; we agree on that. I've said so repeatedly, and it's in the article.

As it also says in the article, however, there are some instances in which the term "gaijin" is inappropriately informal. For example, if I wanted to open an account the bank teller told me "Gaijin dakara, gaijin tōrokusho ga histuyō desu" I would consider that rude, since I am a customer, and should be addressed using more formal terms. Exploding Boy 07:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This still doesn't excuse the edit which said shortened form (ryakugo) is inpolite. This has no ground in japanese language. Therefore, every edit you made which is based on the argument that shortened form is impolite is false edit. Vapour

gaijin used exlusive to white in practice?

This is incorrect information. Black, indian, arab, persian are also refered as gaijin. It is usually used in reference to non oriental. Vapour

Re: edits to this article

It is very confusing to have a lot of different subsections on the talk page and to create a different subsection for each different item in question, especially when Vapour refuses to date stamp his comments by signing with four tildes instead of three.

I suggest that we discuss each part bit by bit otherwise we're going to get nowhere.

Exploding Boy 04:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of section in talk page is to segment each topic so that it is easier to follow discussion. In fact it is more difficutlt to follow the debate without section. As of my lack of date stamp I have alaready explained to you why. I have been in wikipedia for a quite while and you are the only person who said you can't follow the discussion because I don't date stamp. As long as other wikipedia function such as (=) or (:) are used, it should not be a problem. My lack of date stamp is done in good faith. Feel free to complain to admin. Vapour

I am an admin, and I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages, which specifically says that it is preferable to use a date stamp. This page has tripled in the last couple of days (since you started editing the article) with a confusing number of subsections and conversations that go nowhere. Please, slow down, and discuss your proposed changes here before making them. Exploding Boy 04:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "preferable" and I have provided you why I do not use it. Because of my English, my comment are often incorrect gramatically or logically. I reed to reedit my comment quite often and for this reason, date stamping my comment would be factually inaccurate. And I have not encountered a situation in which someone complained that they could not follow the debate because I did not use date stamp. I do not believe that you are unable to recognise that this paragraph is in response to "I am an admin...." paragraph. "Wikipedia is not a system of law". If you think there are really really serious reason which require me to date stamp, then let me know. Vapour

Forgive me, but I think this is absolute nonsense. The point is not what comment you're responding to, but (roughly) when you responded. I find it very odd that you refuse to date stamp your posts. Exploding Boy 05:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And I find it odd that you feel such need to insist on it. Why, is it so important to you? Vapour

I've explained why repeatedly. Please sign your posts with four tildes. Exploding Boy 05:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And I'm not convinced with your argument. So no consensus here. I believe that I should make my judgement about what is appropriate presentation of my comment given that I often edit my comment retrospectively so that my comment makes sense. Moreover, I should also point out that so far, you have repeatedly used Japanese without giving English translation, making it impossible for everyone (except those who can read Japanese) to follow what you are talking about. You insist rule while at the same time ignoring the reason why such rule exist. Vapour

I'm talking with you here. You claim to be a native Japanese speaker, so surely it's not a problem for you? Exploding Boy 05:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

This page is not an internet forum. Wikipedia debate suppose to be open. Anyone can and should be able to participate in ongoing debate. What you are doing close this discussion to outside, making it esentially a quarrel between you and me. If you are admin, you should know that such thing is not not kosher in wikipedia. And I find it bit diffcult to believe that someone who easily make the debate personal are allowed to become an admin. "I'm talking with you here." This statement is unbecoming of an admin. Vapour

The only point I'm trying to make is that the information I posted in Japanese was intended for you to read. There's nothing wrong with that, especially since we're the only two having a discussion here. I still don't konw why you refuse to respond to it. It demonstrates that there's a lot of disagreement with your position among native speakers of Japanese. Exploding Boy 06:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see logic of your argument especially when you are making parallel argument that I should tag my comment with time (which I don't consider to be valid point anyway). Even when you are making an argument in responce to my comment, you are presenting the argument to all. While my comment without time tag can still be followed by anyone, your comment is not. If you want to do it in Japanese, we can just shift to Japanese wikipedia. Vapour

Hafu and Nikkei jin

"People of Japanese descent living in or born in foreign countries are known as Nikkei-jin (persons of Japanese descent), while children of mixed (Japanese and non-Japanese) parentage are known as konketsu ("mixed blood") or, more informally, as hāfu ("half")."

Deleted because it has no relevance to usage of gaijin. Vapour

It does have relevance to the discussion, far more relevance than ensuto, which is totally without connection to the topic. Please slow down and discuss your proposed edits here before making them. Exploding Boy 04:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Not in "Usage" section. You might want to revive it in "Controversy" section. But usage section is for usage of the words gaikokujin and gaijin. Vapour

Once again, this seems like nonsense to me. You object to information on what foreigners of Japanese descent are called in Japan, but insist on using the word ensuto?? Exploding Boy 05:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ensuto is relevant becaus it is about usage of shortened word (ryakugo). Nikkei or hafu has no relevance in term of the usage of gaijin. Vapour

Of course it does. The word ensuto has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the word gaijin. Nikkei/konketsu/hāfu are all words to describe foreign people, just like gaijin. What's so hard to understand? Exploding Boy 05:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ensuto is Ryakugo. So what logic is there to insist that it has nothing to do with gajini which is another ryakugo. I'm trying to provide fuller description of Ryakugo in Japanese. As of Nikkei/Konnketu/hafu, it is relevant to you because you are obsessed with race issue. And precisely for that reason, you should revive this in "controversy" section. The Japanese words describing "mixed", "japanese decent" and "half" has relevance because those kids in school sometimes get refered as "gaijin", "gaikokujin" or "uchujin", just as in case of that american sitcom where a black guy was refered as foreign. And for precisely this reason, Nikkei/konketsu/hafu should be discussed in controversy section. Vapour

Excuse me, but I'm not "obsessed with the race issue." Feel free to mention something about nikkei/konketsu/hāfu in the Controversy section. All I'm doing is providing some relevant information in the Usage section about what other foreigners are called. Also, uchūjin? Is this some sort of joke? Exploding Boy 06:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have realised that it is you who rewrote this article very recently. You rewrote the article based on your faulty understanding of Japanese language that shortend form (ryakugo) is inpolite. Controversy section is also rewritten on this understanding. This is just so wrong. I can source various Japanese Dictionary of Ryakugo (cotracted term) to prove that not only Ryakugo is not inpolite but the use of ryakugo is intensive in Japanese language even in very formal written language including medical or scientific or legal term. Moreover, when you rewrote the article, you eliminate significant amount of content which does not support your POV that gaijin is projetive. This kind of biased rewrite is not acceptable especially when the previous edit was fairly stable for a while. Feel free to add your edit on previous version of article. Vapour

My edits to the Usage section

• Replaced confusing ensuto reference with simpler explanation
• Removed inaccurate comments about abbreviations in English.
• Removed long, unnecessary comments about titles, replace with shorter, simpler paragraph
• Streamlined and simplified section on gaikoku
• Restore comments on foreigners of Japanese descent
• Removed inaccurate and, frankly, bizarre, comments about Taiwanese and Irish
• Edited for English grammar, style and flow

Exploding Boy 05:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ensuto

Ensuto reference restored because it provide infornation that that ryakugo (shortened word) is not informal or inpolite. Why this is not relevant to usage of gaijin which is an another ryakugo is beyond me. Vapour

Selective censoring of information

"Thus, the construction gaikoku no kata (外国の方, roughly "a person from another country") is the most polite, followed by gaikokujin, with gaijin being the shortest, the most casual, and thus the least polite form. There are subtle differences in nuance in the choice of phrasing."

The above edit selectively censor other information which is inconvenient to those who wish to advance view that "gaiji=inpolite because it is short". Most importantly, it conveniently censor the fact that both gaikokujin and gaijin would be rude in direct reference in this context, that is alteration of form according to usage of keigo (polite/attentive/humble) form.

"In Japanese, gramaticall neutral reference is considered as rude in case of direct (i.e. non third person) social interaction. For example, for most social occasion, one must refers to someone's name with "san". In business dealing, one might have to refer to one's client as "sama" (sir/maddame). Socially it is acceptable to call someone without san or sama only if the person called is one's friend or one's inferior in social setting. For this reason, "gaijin no kata" "gaikokujin no kata" "gaikoku no kata" are all polite reference to someone who is foreign while more "socially neutral" reference is "gaijin no hito" "gaikokujin no hito" or "gaikoku no hito", followed by gramatically neutral and hence socially blant expression "gaijin" or "gaikokujin". However, it is acceptable to make reference in gramatically neutral term, gaijin or gaikokujin if reference is in third person context. So if someone want to say "where is that foreigner?" "ano gaikokujin/gaijin dokoni imasuka?" then use of "sama/kata/hito" is not required. "

Please demonstrate if any part of above statement is factually incorrect. Then i'm happy to be corrected. Argument that the above edit is irrelevant is very shallow excuse IMO. Vapour

All non oriental are refered as gaijin

Again another example of selective censoring of information. Gaijin is used to refer to all non oriental foreigner. Vapour

Gaijin and Gaikokujin

I will delete any edit which deliberately ignore the information that usage of replaced by gaikokujin is also rude. It is delibrate spindoctoring for particular agenda. Vapour

"Since there are specific rules for polite speech in Japanese, and since Japanese people are sensitive to differences in nuance of different speech styles, the use of the word gaijin is usually deliberate, that is, it is either deliberately deployed as a pejorative—as in the terms baka-gaijin (stupid foreigner!) or gaijin-kusai (literally, "it stinks of foreigners"); only used when it is assumed that any non-Japanese present will not understand what is being said—asoko no gaijin ("that foreigner over there"); or used only in situations where its intended meaning—whether neutral or otherwise—will not be ambiguous. The standard form in government and media is gaikokujin."

Linking usage of gaijin to specific projetive usage is spindoctoring. In all usage, replacing gaijin with gaikokujin is also rude so the argument is irrelevant. Vapour

Foreigner->Physical trait

"Some non-Japanese also object to the use of gaijin as a form of address (as in gaijin-san). It is common in Japanese to address others by title rather than name. For example, customers are customarily addressed as O-kyaku-sama ("honourable customer"); a person who works in a bookshop might be addressed as Honya-san (Mr. Bookseller); a butcher might be addressed as Nikuya-san (Miss Butcher), and so on. However, addressing others by a physical trait is not usually seen as polite. For example, it would not be acceptable, in most cases, to address someone as Debu-san (Mr. Fatty) or Megane-san (Ms. Eyeglasses). The term gaijin-san is akin to calling someone Mrs. Foreigner, and is therefore often perceived as rude."

No basis whatsoever. When reference to foreigner become physical trait. Only justified if gaijin only refer to white which is factually untrue. Vapour

Clearly "foreignness" (ie: being non-Asian) is a physical trait. Exploding Boy 17:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No canadian citizen called canadian

I think someone can be called canadian when the person takes up citizenship. Vapour

Expat and naturalised japanese

Expat is not naturalised Japanese so they can't freeload on the problem of naturalised Japanese. Vapour

Japanese government

Government to acknowledge persons of non-Japanese ethnicity as citizens even if they are born in Japan. Only valid if one suffer illusion that birth=citizenship is norm in the world. Weasel attempt to insert POV. Vapour

American sitcom

Inappropriate comparison. Calling native non white as foreinger is rude in any language. In here, whether one use gaijin or gaikokujin is irrelevant. Another biased edit. Vapour

gaijin->enemy

I have no objection to the fact that people held different POV. But claim which has no baisis whatsoever should not be included. Where in the term gaijin or gaikokujin say it means enemy. Not every POV get to be included. Plus Japanese wikipedia is not valid reference source if it doesn't have proper citation. Vapour

Foreign man

The correct word is foreigner. Deliberate refrasing of the word to advance one's agenda. Moreover, lonterm resident without citizenship is a foreigner. Refering naturalised citizen as foreinger is rude but that is same in Japan or anywhere. Agains delet. Vapour

Naturalised citizen

The controversy is about using gaijin instead of gaikokujin. appropriateness of context of referening comeone as foreinger has zero relevance to the controversy. Vapour

Revert

The article rewritten by Exploding Boy has very little content except to advance his agenda that gaijin is projetive. Moreover, his complete rewrite on 3rd of April is based on his argument that contracted form (ryakugo) is inpolite which is based on his faulty understanding of Japanese language. Moreover, he eliminated sigifnicant portion of useful information which got in the way of his agenda. I will revert the article so the debate and edit can be restarted more constructively. Vapour

This is ridiculous

Vapour is starting a new subheading for discussion of each individual sentence here, inserting non-neutral and factually inaccurate points of view, and generally being uncooperative. This talk page went from one or two sentences to over 40kb in just one evening! This discussion cannot continue this way.

Something needs to be done here. I'm referring the article to WP:RFC as a start, and asking yet again that we discuss on this page before making changes in the article.

The page will remain much more stable, and ultimately will be better written, more neutral and more accurate if we can agree on any changes here before editing the article itself.

Let's start with the intro section: Exploding Boy 17:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of non-neutrality and factual inaccuracies is pointless unless you provide specific examples. I for one have been repeatedly pointing out to you that your assertion that "Shortened form (Ryakugo)" is impolite has no basis on Japanese grammer whatsoever. But more importantly, just a while back, based on your false premise, you done complete rewrite of stable version of this article] which has had input from large number of people and had been stable. I was going along with current version of this article until I found out that the current article is just your rewrite with few minor input by two or three other people who I haven't seen in much of previous edit. The part I found it to be unacceptable is the fact that you eliminated many content from the previous version which does not fit Gaijin=projetive POV. The page will remain much more stable when it is reverted to the state before you done your complete rewrite. If you want to modify that, fine, but you should justify your edit one by one. Vapour

Based on your statement that "we discuss on this page before making changes in the article", I will revert the article to the stable version which was before your complete rewrite. That version had input from far more singificant number of people. Vapour