Talk:Gaijin/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

What has happened to this article?

The entire controversies section has disappeared, making the article pretty much irrelevant. If it's going to be a simple dicdef, then it should be transwikied to Wiktionary. The entire point of this article is that the term is controversial. Exploding Boy 22:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. The lengthy discussion above would make an excellent scholarly review of why the word gaijin should not be derogatory; but unfortunately that's original research, and Wikipedia's job is to also explain why some people feel the word is derogatory. Think creation vs evolution: no matter how stupid/illogical/unscientific you think one side of the argument is, it still has to be explained for NPOV to be maintained. Jpatokal 02:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Well, there used to be a "controversies" section. We should restore it and go from there. Exploding Boy 02:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Which part do you feel is original research? Most all of it has cited, reliable sources. Also note that none of it has made it onto the main page yet as there is still not consensus. If there are reliable sources that you can site for "why some people feel the word is derogatory", then it too should be acceptable. Bendono 02:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There were reams of precisely that type of information in the article before. Someone, or some people, have seen it fit to remove it all. Exploding Boy 02:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure which parts you are referring to specifically. If you think there are sufficient citations, then feel free to bring them back from the history. If they lack sufficient citations, then surely it can be discussed here. Bendono 02:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"We should just restore it and go from there." Excuse me, but the editors who wrote the controversy section were given plenty of time (months, and months, and months) to back up their claims with specific citations. They produced absolutely nothing. The archives are a perfect documented example of how many editors tried to be more than fair to them, giving them plenty of time to source their claims before removing the assertions from the article. It was clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they had no sources. It was all original research picked up from e-mail chat fora and personal opinions. As for Jpatokal, forgive me for being a little irritated, but I specifically went to the trouble of documenting my sources to avoid the original research accusation. Perhaps you were directing your OR comments at Bendono's graphs and such, I don't know, but we haven't even begun to re-write the article yet, and already you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater by going back to all of the unsourced claims?? If the choice is to go with sourced material, describing what it says (which, by the way, I haven' come close to finishing yet---I'm just busy), or going back to writing whatever we feel like with no sources whatsoever, I'm pretty confident that the administrators would side with the editors who produce publicly verifiable third-party sources, written in NPOV. You and Exploding Boy may not like it, but those are the WP guidelines. I'm sorry if my tone comes across wrong, but I just don't understand what's the point of gowing through all of this hard work (long hours researching in libraries, looking up source materials, etc.---a lot of grub work that sometimes produced nothing) only to be have a couple editors say, (I'm paraphrasing): "I don't care what the linguists, lexicographers, academics, journalist handbooks, etc say or don't say, let's write our own article without sources." J Readings 08:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy there, big fella. Unfortunately one part of WP guidelines is that "[of published material serving to advance a position]" is original research, and it's fairly obvious from the discussion above that the position you're trying to buttress is that "gaijin is not derogatory".

But this doesn't mean we have to throw out the baby or the bathwater at this point. The research you've done will create a great history/etymology section if worded carefully. The issue, as Exploding Boy pointed out, is how do we deal with the situation right now, with some people/groups considering gaijin derogatory. It's a significant group, and if we have to cite Debito as one end of the spectrum, then so be it. Jpatokal 09:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of buttressing at all. Like Bendono and Jim Lockhart, I haven't found any reliable sources that make the claim. Please cite the "significant group" and we can consider it. I'm asking you out of interest, actually: Please help me find a reliable third-party source in the libraries that also says that gaijin is a derogatory word (authors, linguists, academics, etc.) Please don't think for a second that I haven't tried. I found academics like Prof. Wada saying that the word is not derogatory; I found linguists and Western academics using it all the time in their academic prose, I found authors like Paul Meredith Stuart et al. commenting on the harmlessness of the word, etc. (I haven't reported all those findings yet), but no reliable source ever saying that it's derogatory. Regarding Arudou, I think that you already know that Arudou Debito's e-mail to a few chat fora is not an acceptable source. I follow very carefully the WT:RS discussions, and they already established that e-mails and personal homepages are unacceptable for serious third-party issues. It had to go. We can use his personal website for issues relating to him on his particular page (that's within WP guidelines), but Arudou is not a linguist, a Japanese academic, etc. Moreover, in this instance, he didn't even attempt to submit it to a reliable peer-reviewed publication. The e-mail really can't be cited. J Readings 10:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

According to [1] (yes, our friend Debito), TV Asahi commissioned a survey of 1000 Japanese people in 1996.

"Do you use the word gaijin?" 51% said yes, 49% said no.

"Do you think foreigners would feel uncomfortable with you using the word?" 51% yes, 41% no, 8% don't know.

"Is it a discriminatory word?" Well over half (61%) said no, 34% yes, 5% didn't know. Jpatokal 10:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Once again you want to use an e-mail that Debito wrote with an unverified TV Asahi claim? Really?? <sigh> J Readings 10:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

J Readings: It would appear that you are responding to me. I did not ask anyone to just restore the history without conditions. Specifically I stated that the information needs to quote a reliable source. And of course some sources are more reliable than others. Those arguments can be made here, as is the same with all other articles. There should be no censorship as long as reliable sources are quoted. It should go without saying, nor am I directing it at anyone in particular, but perhaps we all should review WP:V, Types of Sources, WP:RS, and maybe even WP:NOT#CENSORED.

Your effort has not gone to waste. It can surely be used in the article.

As for the chart, I gave the resource used to generate it. Anyone should be able to recreate it from scratch with it. It was intended to clarify the issues, but apparently it has not. It need not be used if not needed or unwelcomed. Bendono 12:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Bendono, I was responding to Exploding Boy and Jpatokal, but given the structure and flow of the comments, I can see how you might have thought that I was responding to you. In any case, as for your comments, I agree. No one is looking to censor publicly verifiable, reliable third-party sources. The entire issue here is precisely one of finding those reliable sources, not at all an easy task and it requires a lot of hard work. Best, J Readings 12:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Jpatokal: I do not think that Debito is a very reliable resource. Even the TV Asahi (!?) broadcast would be better, but still far (far) from ideal. How about some published books, magazine articles, or studies? Surely some people, for whatever reasons, take offense to the term gaijin. But for a controversial topic such as this, we really do need concrete, reliable sources to quote. It is for the sake of being well balanced and WP:NPOV. The better the resources, the stronger the case can be made. Bendono 12:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, how "reliable" are you looking for? Arudou is a source, a verifiable and well-known one. That should be good enough. He's not just some random blogger, he's a published author and (somewhat) public figure. Second, there were others given too. By the way, I stopped editing this article because it was made impossible by one particular user who wanted to achieve consensus on each and every sentence. It was very frustrating. But what we've ended up with is no better than an article full of unsourced claims. If this is the best we can do, then it's time to delete. Exploding Boy 15:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. Following that logic, Arudou can circulate an e-mail on some chat forum about any subject he chooses, and Exploding Boy would be right there to cite his personal homepage as an authoritative reference on the subject. I don't think that's what the WP administrators had in mind when they go into detail about "reliable sources." Like Bendono, I stongly suggest that editors carefully review WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:V. Let's review the obvious reasons why the Arudou e-mail can't be used. (1) It's an e-mail! (2) It was never published anywhere that has editorial review. (3) Arudou gave no print sources that can be verified in accordance with WP policies within his e-mail on the subject of the word gaijin. (4) Arudou is not a published authority on the Japanese language. He's not a linguist. He's not literary critic. He's not even a professional translator (no offense to Jim Lockhart and Bendono). I don't object to editors providing reliable third-party citations that offer minority viewpoints on the history, etymology, and usage of the term (that's why I didn't delete the Tokyo Drift edit). But the need to quote e-mails in a serious encyclopedia entry smacks of a desperate political agenda. J Readings 15:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, aren't you sarcastic. Moving along, I should have thought it would be clear that Arudou is a usable source precisely because he's not just some random guy posting messages to a chat forum. He is (once again) a published author; a well known, semi-public figure (by both Japanese and non-Japanese in Japan); and something of an expert on the subject. He's been invited to speak at UBC. And I don't even know what email you're talking about. I'm talking about his website. Exploding Boy 15:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Exploding Boy: I'm not being sarcastic. I take these issues quite seriously. Do you read the WP guidelines? As for Arudou's personal homepage, if you carefully read those pages that state quite clearly that Arudou circulated his essay on chat fora such as Dead Fukuzawa Society, Issho Kikaku, etc. ten years ago. They were e-mails then. They are e-mails now. The only difference is that Arudou archived them on his personal homepage. That is his website. J Readings 15:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So? We allow, for example, Andrew Sullivan's blog musings. Why not Arudou's? We can (and should) use Arudou if it gives us a verifiable source demonstrating that some people find the term offensive. Exploding Boy 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So, your argument is that Arudou is an authority on all things Japanese because some people have heard of him? Therefore, we should cite his e-mails as publicly verifiable sources and forget about the guidelines. Is that right? I'm sorry, I disagree. J Readings 16:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think that's even approaching a reasonable interpretation of what I wrote, and I'm getting a little tired of your sarcasm. Exploding Boy 16:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking you nicely to stop accusing me of sarcasm. This is the second time you did it. Your only argument is that Arudou is a known figure. You don't address any of the other issues; you don't provide any other sources; you continue to insist that Arudou is authoritative without offering us anything else. If that's your only argument, that's okay. But the e-mail is sill not an authoritative source. How about some books, magazine articles, and serious journal articles. Anything. J Readings 16:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How else should I interpret your posts? That Arudou is a known figure is not my only argument, as I've said twice. And what other issues? We're talking specifically about Arudou at present. You seem to be objecting to him solely on the basis that his views haven't been published in an academic article. I'm saying that every source doesn't have to be academic, as long as it's verifiable (Arudou is), notable (Arudou is: he even has his own Wikipedia article) and reliable (Arudou is). Exploding Boy 16:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the guideline issues and WP policies--things that matter when reviewing material in libraries and online. While I'm responding, though, please elaborate on how Arudou is "something of an expert on the subject [of the word gaijin]." It's still unclear why he necessarily has to be a reliable source on the history, etymology, and usage of the word. Had he published his comments in peer-reviewed journals or newspapers on the subject of gaijin, I would think that it would suffice as one of the minority opinions to be cited (versus all of the cited expert opinions above and elsewhere). But as I keep pointing out, his was an e-mail circulated 10 years ago and now archived on his personal homepage (something WP guidelines discourage). If we go before the administrators on this issue, I would be surprised if they agreed that this (by itself) constitutes a reliable sources given WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. J Readings 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My point is that a variety of sources is acceptable, and less than ideal sources are better than no sources and therefore no article. Arudou doesn't even have to be an expert; it's well known that gaijin is a controversial term: we just need a verifiable, somewhat known source to be able to say so in the article. As a white, American-born Japanese citizen, Arudou more than fits the bill. Exploding Boy 00:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There are levels of authoritativeness here: it would be quite ridiculous to, for example, quote Kojien and Arudou back-to-back in the History section, because Arudou obviously has no expertise in interpreting the Heike Monogatari. But as a published author and well-known discrimination pundit in modern Japan, his opinions on what the word means today are, IMHO, citable. Jpatokal 02:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as they are cited as opinions and not statements of definitive fact, and Arudou is identified as an activist pundit and not a credentialed academic scholar. Jim_Lockhart 02:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Jim's point would have been included in the article, regardless where Arudou published. Arudou doesn't claim to be an objective scholar writing on these issues. But all of this is not even necessary at this point. There is a lot more serious research that needs to be done before the article is re-written. I'll be visiting the library in a few weeks for the media issues; I'll get around to writing-up what the other academics, authors, and scholars published on the word gaijin (which basically agrees with Prof. Wada) over the next week. I'm really busy this week. Best, J Readings 02:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Above: I found academics like Prof. Wada saying that the word is not derogatory; I found linguists and Western academics using it all the time in their academic prose, I found authors like Paul Meredith Stuart et al. commenting on the harmlessness of the word, etc. (I haven't reported all those findings yet), but no reliable source ever saying that it's derogatory. What I haven't yet seen is an explanation of what it would mean for the word to be discriminatory, derogatory, or offensive. I raised this issue earlier (perhaps two archives ago). Unfortunately I did so in a rather verbose and unclear way (perhaps I was sleepy) and perhaps this is why it seems to have got no reaction. In brief, though, I'm puzzled by the notion that a word can be regarded as offensive or inoffensive if somebody can be found mentioning it as such in a peer-reviewed journal. Offensiveness seems a little too complex for this. Offensiveness of intent may differ from offensiveness of effect; the former may be hard to gauge; the latter is arguably confused here by the question of whether the many of the likely referents of this word have acquired it in their L2 Japanese in the normal way (the way they acquired such words as 小学生、韓国人、お巡りさん) or instead have done so as guided by more or less polemical essays and the like. -- Hoary 03:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hoary: you ask a lot of thought-provoking questions, but I can't provide many of the answers. I do want to repeat something that's worth repeating, though. I think that we all need to keep in mind is that this is supposed to be a terciary source that simply describes what secondary sources say on the subject of the word. Where I disagree strongly with Exploding Boy is this notion that we all start with a preconceived framework for what this article should generally say (i.e., "We all know that the word is controversial") and work backwards to justify these notions. If we can't do that, the argument goes, the article should be deleted because it now has no use to the reader. I disagree. The reader benefits from knowing what the current state of knowledge is. When I started to research this issue a year ago, I was surprised to learn that a lot of what I assumed to be common knowledge just isn't so. The entire controversy section, for example, is not a series of documented facts describing what other reputable authors/scholars/journalists/pundits are saying in reliable publications. It was original research by people on the internet. As much as I would welcome those documented facts, they simply don't exist (or haven't been produced so far). Our job now is to document (and reflect) the history, etymology, and current usage of the word as can be vigorously proven (and sometimes cross-verified) with inline citations for each sentence. As Jim Lockhart is fond of saying, We are supposed to describe the debate, not engage in it. Whatever take-home message the reader gets depends largely on what serious editors can bring to the table. I would also add that the mere fact that most authors/scholars/journalists/pundits do not see fit to write on the subject says the "controversy" may not be as "controversial" as previously assumed by some editors here. Best, J Readings 11:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of Arudou, we only need to demonstrate that some people find the word offensive/that there is controversy surrounding its use. We all know that's true; we just need to be able to show it.

On the issue of offensiveness, I think it's fairly clear from the section C&Pd below. Exploding Boy 05:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that most (all) of the C&Pd below had to be deleted because it was original research with no sources at all. If the argument then becomes, "Well, we'll cite Arudou" -- regardless of the publication venue (e-mail, etc), but let that pass for now -- then the unpleasant issues arises of "undue weight" (another Wikipedia no-no) being attached to one author being used to cite (what?) paragraphs and paragraphs and paragraphs of text, most of which is not even covered in Arudou's e-mail. I've been spending (wasting?) my free time on weekends looking through libraries and online for reliable sources that document any of those claims. Unless reliable sources can be produced this time around, it will be deleted again. If it's not deleted by one of us, it will by someone new coming along later. Trust me when I say, these sources simply do not exist in any conventional publication. So please guys, don't think for a second that the problem will go away if the article is re-written without any sources. It will start the cycle anew, and the article will never even get a "B" rating, let alone anything higher. I'm trying my best to provide reliable sources. I would appreciate some help in the libraries! :-) J Readings 09:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Certain things are common knowledge. Do we really need to provide a citation for statements such as:

"In Japanese, the shortening of long words is common in colloquial usage" or "Japanese speakers commonly refer to non-Japanese as gaijin even when on trips overseas"

or

"The use of the word gaijin is often a source of controversy. While the term is not necessarily pejorative, its use can be considered offensive in some circumstances, in part because it is a contraction (and thus less polite than other terms), and in part because of mixed perceptions of its specific meaning"

? What I C&Pd there is in many cases really poorly written. This can be attributed to the actions of the editor mentioned above, who made every last sentence into a fight. That's why I stopped editing the article: it became an exercise in interminable arguing.

I think there is plenty below that can be salvaged, and no, I'm not saying that we should just stick Arudou's name at the bottom. I'm not sure why this particular article has become such a contentious one, but we do not need to source every last statement. Exploding Boy 15:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It depends entirely on how professional an article you want to research and write. I read the featured content articles daily. I am very impressed with them, and my hat goes off to all of those editors who work long hours and get very little credit for their efforts. Most (all) of them are excellently researched with introductory sentences that, true, don't have citations, but develop supporting sentences that are, indeed, throughly cited and sometimes cross-cited. Moreover, this is the standard that WP exlicitly wants to achieve. I recommend that everyone start reading those articles, if you haven't already, to get a sense for what a good article is and isn't. In my experience editing Wikipedia, some articles are so contentious that the only way to resolve the problem is to cite almost every sentence, sometimes with more than one citation. J Readings 18:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not a desirable solution, in my view. Standard academic practice is not to cite every single sentence. In Wikipedia that leads to cluttered, hard to read, difficult to edit articles. We're not talking about taking this article to featured status. We're talking about making it relevant and useful. As it currently stands, it's neither, frankly. If it's to remain in its current state, it would be transwikied to Wiktionary and deleted. Exploding Boy 19:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Doing the proper research on this article is not a one-shot deal that can be fixed over night. It takes a long time. As Bendono says, patience is needed. You might be right: in the end, we might have to delete the entire article because the original WP editors erred in creating it in the first place. But I didn't waste a year of my life researching this word to be told now that my efforts here were in vain because they don't fit someone's assumptions about what the documented controversy behind it *should have* produced by now, or what the article *should say* by now. I want to see this project through to the end, and I suspect that I'm not alone. Best wishes, J Readings 19:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering where this got to. Oh well, here it is again:

Foreigners in Japan complain about the use of the 'gaijin' to refer to them and have done since at least the late 1980s. When Japanese use this term . . . they often mean specifically western foreigners rather than other Asians or Africans. The two characters of the word mean 'outside person'; it is a contraction of the word gaikokujin, literally "person from another country." Gaikokujin is uncontroversial and simply means a person who does not hold Japanese citizenship; it is the more common contracted version that has been the subject of irritated complaint: people may be pointed at by children and have the word gaijin either shouted or whispered . . . At a deeper level, though, it is the connotation of exclusion and oddity that irks, particularly when the term is combined with the adjective hen na to mean 'peculiar foreigner,' a term once often heard on Japanese television shows. The term gaijin itself is included these days by most braodcasters on their list of terms best avoided" (117-118). Nanette Gottlieb, "Representation and Identification: Discriminatory Language," in Language and Society in Japan. Cambridge University Press, 2005

Exploding Boy 19:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean you’ve been watching us go back and forth on this all this time while sitting on this source? At any rate, it is certainly a good one, and it is perfect for illustrating the counterpoint that many of those—particularly native Japanese speakers—have been trying to make since at least the mid-1980s (when I first got wind of the controversy while working in a multi-ethnic office in Jimbocho): the essence of it is in the section from “At a deeper level, though” through the end. Most Japanese insist that their is no intended connotation of exclusion and oddity; and the expression hen-na gaijin is usually more of a complement of someone’s abilities in Japanese than an insult.

As to how much substantiation is needed and whether it makes articles harder to read or edit is concerned: I disagree that it makes articles harder to read, and even if it did, I suppose that would be the price to pay for enhanced reliability. If in-line citations make articles harder to edit, it also makes them that much less susceptible to arbitrary changes, especially to elements like statistics. Personally, I previously felt that paragraph-by-paragraph citations should be enough, but I've recently changed my mind because of the number of times I’ve encountered whimsical mid-paragraph changes that deviated substantially from what was said in the source material to which the paragraph was attributed.

Back to this article: Has anyone else noticed that gaikokujin is no longer used “mostly in reference to white non-Japanese” anymore? I’ve noticed that it is increasingly used on news programs in reference to all foreigners. Gaijin also seems to be slowly disappearing.... Jim_Lockhart 07:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Gottlieb: it is the more common contracted version that has been the subject of irritated complaint: people may be pointed at by children and have the word gaijin either shouted or whispered. Yes. But I for one would be just as irritated if the word shouted or whispered were instead gaikokujin or [name of country]-jin or ["color" of skin]-jin or something about my, ahem, body–mass index or hairstyle or whatever. Children, drunks, retards and others behave childishly; and when they do so, it's hardly surprising that they use short, well-known words. I realize that it's not for me, a mere anonym slogging away here, to argue with something published by the august Cambridge UP, or indeed to engage in "the debate" (?) at all; but really, some of the stuff that's said in all seriousness on this [non-] issue strikes me as very feebly thought out. -- Hoary 07:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Horay’s on target here: the annoyance is not the word that’s used (hence my argument that whether gaijin is a contraction/polite or not, is irrelevant); it’s the underlying mentality. But this mentality is hardly unique to Japan, as just about anyone who has lived somewhere where his or her different ethnicity/nationality is obvious in the way it is in Japan for people on non-East Asian ethnicity in Japan. This is another reason that I am inclined to question the utility of an article like this one without reference to the real problem (singling out of ethnic-group outsiders) in a world-wide context. Jim_Lockhart 11:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Lockhart:As to how much substantiation is needed and whether it makes articles harder to read or edit is concerned: I disagree that it makes articles harder to read, and even if it did, I suppose that would be the price to pay for enhanced reliability. Precisely! It's good to know that another editor working on this article understands that point.J Readings 08:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't been sitting on it. Just forgot about it until yesterday, and then had to search the history to find it.

'Most Japanese insist that their is no intended connotation of exclusion and oddity.

Yes, but I think they're being disingenuous. Imagine if in, say, a Western hospital, a receptionist tried to get someone's attention by saying "excuse me, Mr. Foreigner." Some Japanese argue that it's a cultural holdover from the sakoku days and others, as above, that there is no connotation of negativity or exclusion. I say nonsense. Japanese has a very convenient term of address for people one doesn't know: okyakusama is appropriate for, and universally used in nearly all business and service-related environments. Even in other situations there are myriad other terms, like oniisan, okusan, shachō, or the ever convenient sumimasen.

"and the expression hen-na gaijin is usually more of a complement of someone’s abilities in Japanese than an insult.'

It's a bit of a backhanded compliment, don't you think? Only in Japan/with Japanese people have I ever been asked, for example, "why" can you speak my language?"

I think, as used to be in the controversy section, that some people undoubtedly don't realize that some foreigners object to "gaijin," while others know that they do and use it deliberately as a pejorative term.

I for one would be just as irritated if the word shouted or whispered were instead gaikokujin or [name of country]-jin or ["color" of skin]-jin or something about my, ahem, body–mass index or hairstyle or whatever.

True, but they never say "gaikokujin" unless they're making a conscious effort to be polite. The last time I was in Japan I had several experiences with the word "gaijin." Each time, when the speaker realized I'd heard and understood the term, s/he reacted with embarassment.

some of the stuff that's said in all seriousness on this [non-] issue strikes me as very feebly thought out.

I don't think it's a non-issue. I think that many non-Japanese find the term offensive, at least in some uses, and that many Japanese are aware of this. A Japanese friend quickly apologized the first time he used it in my presence, for example.

But this mentality is hardly unique to Japan, as just about anyone who has lived somewhere where his or her different ethnicity/nationality is obvious in the way it is in Japan for people on non-East Asian ethnicity in Japan.

Well, I'd argue that it is somewhat unique to Japan. The term "foreigner" has specific uses in English-speaking countries, even in places where the population is predominantly white. We don't, for example, refer to a 10-year resident from another country as a "foreigner" unless we're being impolite. We might refer to "the Japanese guy on the first floor" or "the people from South Africa who live upstairs" or even "the black guy," but we wouldn't call them Mr. Japan(ese) or Mrs. South Africa(n), and we certainly wouldn't call them Mr. Foreigner. And you can be fairly certain that a schoolkid won't walk around a corner and go "Ah! It's a foreigner!" Exploding Boy 15:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, we wouldn’t—because “we’d” be speaking English in American or British (or wherever’s) society, not Japanese in Japanese society. Since when does the usage of a word in one language and society become the benchmark by which a word of similar meaning, used in the context of a different society, should be judged? I’m sure you don’t mean to imply that how and when “foreigner” is used in English (likewise for tacking titles of address like “Mr” onto it) should be the standard by which gaijin (or gaijin-san) is measured, do you? I think fans of multiculturalism and such call that cultural imperialism, don’t they? Jim_Lockhart 17:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Academic citations of usage of term as a racial slur added Expatlecturer 03:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC) One source in particular has indeed be peer reviewed (http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/japanyes.txt). As a result, a reference to the fact that the term is considered a racial slur and used as such needs to be made in the article Expatlecturer 03:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to the gaijin article. Since you seem to feel pretty strongly about this, I suggest a simple dispute resolution intervention by third-parties not already involved with the editing history of this article. You can present your case, and I'll present mine. It's pretty straightforward in how it works, and it's preferable to an edit war (which I don't like at all). J Readings 03:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

One additional comment on my reasoning: As I said previously on this talk page, I have no problem with adding material by reliable third-party sources that offer a peer review process, don't engage in undue weight, and back up the claims made (e.g., Gottlieb). However, using words like "many people" opens up a huge can of worms, according to Wikipedia policies. More importantly, the references you are citing are *not* peer reviewed, not found in newspapers, journals, or books -- and more importantly, explicitly state that they are not to be taken seriously. As for Jim Breen's personal homepage, I would be happy for the admins and third-party editors to comment on that one. Breen is not a linguist, as you know, and from the looks of the page, he didn't publish it anywhere so it was not subject to a peer review. Those create problems for inclusion. Best, J Readings 03:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Gottlieb

On citing Gottlieb, I got around to re-reading her chapter last night. I have no problem with citing her descriptions in the article, provided that the reader is informed of several pertinent facts:

1. Her comments on “foreigners in Japan complain[ing] about the use of the term gaijin” are actually based on her reading of (you guessed it) non-credentialed political activist Arudou Debito's personal homepage and the sporadic e-mail comments found on the now defunct Issho Kikaku mailing list. (see footnotes 15 and 16, pg. 150).
2. We actually include what some would consider the inconvenient facts within her statements, too, that were omitted by ellipses in the quote above such as “though this [shouting or whispering gaijin upon seeing a foreigner] is much less common in Japan today than it was thirty years ago.”
3. The reader is aware, as she states in the beginning of her chapter, that she is simply identifying some “problematic expressions that are identified as discriminatory by the targets themselves, whose protests [in this case, Arudou and some Issho Kikaku e-mail posters] draw the attention of the wider community to the matter.” (pg. 101).

The bottom-line is that she is not making a judgment herself on the nature of the word (she stays neutral), as opposed to linguists, academics and lexicographers such as Minoru Wada, Paul Meredith Stuart, and Donald M. Richardson (to quickly name a few) who explicitly state in their writings that gaijin is not a derogatory word. J Readings 15:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

“though this [shouting or whispering gaijin upon seeing a foreigner] is much less common in Japan today than it was thirty years ago.”

Bearing in mind that that article was published in 2005. Things are changing again. The last time I was in Japan I heard the word "gaijin" more times in a couple of weeks than I did in a year the previous time I was there. Friends who live there permanently have told me the same thing. Exploding Boy 15:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to get back to bar-room level discourse, but I’ve been here since 1981 without interruptions (except for short trips, the longest of which was three months last summer); I can definitely say that the kid-rounding-a-corner and screeching gaijin da! has all but disappeared over the last ten years—so I guess it’s my word against your permanent-resident friends’ on that count. Your experience of hearing “gaijin more times in a couple of weeks than I did in a year the previous time” you were in Japan really doesn’t mean much, at least as far as the article is concerned.
That said, I had nothing against the idea of informing Japanese that many foreigners take offense at being called, identified, singled out, and generally being treated like outsiders—what have you; but I do take issue with the notion that people in general should be told that Japanese have this word—gaijin—that magnificently epitomizes some diabolical enthnocentricity they have, and they should be taken to task for it, and anyone hearing it should immediately take offense and assume he or she has been insulted.
If you want to interpret the explanations of Japanese as uniformly disingenuous, that’s up to you (the country certainly has a culture of almost pathological lying and excuse-making intended to merely mollify, that it’s hard to blame you for that). Personally, I read naïveté into it. I think the kids who have to point out gaijin every time they see them simply have different manners than I was taught. I recent experience in a grocery store has shown me that this, too, is changing.
Japanese, when made aware of these things, generally back off and refrain from using expressions others find offensive (unless they’re of the kind who expressly want to give offense)—that’s probably why we see and hear gaijin less, and why many media outlets have stopped using it. (I wonder if any of you remember when “soaplands” were called Turkish baths (トルコ風呂), and what happened [and how quickly it happened] when some Turkish students complained about it. The difference between those Turks and most gaijin who complain about gaijin is that the Turks were polite about making their dissatisfaction known.) Jim_Lockhart 16:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"All but disappeared"? No. Perhaps in your city. Perhaps in your circles. In all of Japan? I hardly think so. Certainly my personal experience means nothing to the article; no more does yours.

I also think that your characterization of the debate ("that Japanese have this word . . . that magnificently epitomizes some diabolical enthnocentricity they have, and they should be taken to task for it, and anyone hearing it should immediately take offense and assume he or she has been insulted") is neither fair nor reasonable. The fact remains: the term is controversial and many foreigners do object to it. Exploding Boy 17:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Some people may take offense, I don't disagree, but unless you are prepared to document the "many" in your assertion, I think you will agree that it's only your opinion and the POV qualifier certainly stays out of this encyclopedia article. J Readings 17:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case, why are we arguing? The article should have a controversy section. Exploding Boy 17:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains: the term is controversial and many foreigners do object to it: I’ve never disputed this, nor have I ever said this fact should not be presented. I accept this as one fact of the debate that should be presented; what I object to is the article focusing on only it and being skewered so as to make it seem like objecting to it and being offended by it is the only logical conclusion any reasonable person could come to! And my “characterization of the debate” as you see it, is not a characterization of the whole debate, it is a characterization of one side of the debate, and the side the always clamors for the most attention and seems to desire the last word. The other side of the debate are those disingenuous apologists who want us to think that because it’s traditional or some other such nonsense, it shouldn’t or needn’t end.

In any case, our mission here is to make the article describe the debate, not engage in it, and to do so using reliable secondary sources. There’s no need for you too get so... uh... explosive about all this. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 17:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

But... the article currently says nothing about it... Exploding Boy 17:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Exploding Boy, you lack patience. How many times must we say to you that we are still researching all the source materials out there before making potentially hyperbolic, misleading or undocumented statements pretending to be fact? And, by the way, I don't argue. I document. In any case, I have to run. I have a meeting to get to. J Readings 17:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It’s being worked on. Give it time, will you? Like you, I’ve put a lot of effort into this article only to see it ripped apart later. J Readings has taken it upon himself to do an awful lot of research over the past few months, and Bendono has also given it a lot of effort and thought (in contrast, I’ve degenerated into little more than a harper... :( ). So I say give JR some time and space—he’s done some great work elsewhere. Once he’s got something whipped together, I’m sure they will be plenty of room for everyone’s input, and that with solid attribution, the article will say what needs to be said and be remain reasonably stable. Stay tuned.... Jim_Lockhart 17:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack patience?? It's been 14 months since I last edited the article. Why can we not have at least something in there? Wikipedia articles are works in progress: we don't have to wait until they're perfect before putting them online. Exploding Boy 17:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Old version

...is here.

The Fast and the Furious?

I have a problem with the following:

The meaning of gaijin in Japanese society—and the question of who constitutes a gaijin—is explored in depth in the 2006 movie, The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift

I haven't actually seen the movie, but it just doesn't strike me as the deep, social comentary type of movie. I could be wrong, but I kinda doubt there really is an "in-depth exploration of the term 'gaijin' " in that movie. If we're gonna include movies, I'd much rather see an inclusion of Swallowtail Butterfly here - it's been years since I saw that, and yet the only scene I remember clearly is the plight of the white guy who was born and raised in Japan and could only speak Japanese, complaining about being labeled a gaijin and being addressed in English all the time. That does make for a social comentary of the term in my book. TomorrowTime 10:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)