Talk:Japanese diaspora/Archive 1

Project Assessment

Are people living in Japan not "ethnic Japanese"? It sounds to me like you're trying to find a term that covers the entire Japanese diaspora, inclusive of terms like Japanese-American and the like. Technically speaking, "ethnic Japanese" is no different from "Japanese people"; the content of this article has merit, but it needs a new title. LordAmeth 22:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that this article needs a new title. In general, "ethnic Foolander" is not used to refer to people living in Fooland. You just call them "Foolanders". See [1], definition #3:

• being a member of an ethnic group, esp. of a group that is a minority within a larger society: ethnic Chinese in San Francisco.

This matches usages like Ethnic German, Ethnic Indian, etc. For the specific case of "Ethnic Japanese", see first 100 results on Google books; there's an obvious preponderance of Japanese American and Japanese Brazilian topics. I only count about 1/4 of the hits being related to Japanese born and raised in Japan. This is a higher proportion than for other ethnicities (e.g. all but 4 "Ethnic Chinese" hits referred to Overseas Chinese), but it's still a minority of usages:

1. Spickard 2004
2. Tsuneyoshi 2001
3. Klusmeyer 2000
4. Kymlicka year not specified
5. Durgonoglu 1998
6. Possibly Brody 2001
7. Rubinstein 1991 sorta - he's talking about Japanese colonisers in Taiwan
8. de Mente 2003 (scraping the bottom of the barrel as to what qualifies as a "reliable source" about ethnology here)
9. CultureGrams 2000

1. Batten 2003
2. Reiber 2003 (a Frommer's travel guide)
3. Craig 2000
4. Gonzales 2004 (part of the "Complete Idiot's Guide" series)
5. Immortal Wishes (no author or date specified)
6. Weiner 2004
7. Culbert 1996
8. Kearney 1998
9. Befu 2006

1. Minichello 1998
2. Pangi 2003
3. McLaughlin 1999
4. Kent 2006: "they constitute the largest concentration of ethnic Japanese anywhere in the world outside of Japan"
5. Let's Review Global History
6. Kikuchi 2004
7. Clarke 2000, maybe
8. Yamamoto 2001
9. Hsu 1999

In quite a few cases, "ethnic Japanese" is used to contrast Japanese Brazilians with native Japanese. For example, note Douglass 2003: "By she end of 1997, the total population of ethnic Japanese migrants throughout Japan ... was 273000." This would make absolutely no sense if you interpret "Ethnic Japanese" and "Japanese" to mean the same thing. Cheers, cab 02:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree with LordAmeth on this - there is a problem here. People will take the naming of these articles as an indication that "Japanese people" refers to citizens of Japan and "ethnic Japanese" refers to what is currently the article Japanese people.

This article would have a much clearer meaning if it was placed at Nikkeijin or Nikkei people. Your Kent reference shows this well - in it "ethnic Japanese" is the term used to refer to Japanese people, and it is because of this that the term requires further specification with "outside of Japan". All Japanese people are ethnic Japanese, and some ethnic Japanese people live outside of Japan. I believe that those people are all called "Nikkei". Dekimasu 06:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, note that the Ethnic Germans page should redirect to Germans. As the first line of the Germans article states, that article is about the ethnicity. It is under that rubrick that it was already proposed that Ethnic Germans be merged into Germans. There is no article at Ethnic Indian, because it redirects to a page with a better title. Dekimasu 06:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally, you redirected the Japanese immigrants dab page here, which is fine in and of itself according to the contents of the article, but you then did not link any of the pages about Japanese immigrants in different countries on this page. At the very least, they should be readded to a "See also" section at the end of the article. Dekimasu 06:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC) Thank you for changing it. I have readded links to the Nisei and Sansei, originally not on the dab page because they were the children of immigrants and not immigrants themselves - they do apply to the contents of this article. Dekimasu 07:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Those links were already there in the article itself (aside from Issei, Nisei, Sansei); putting them into See Also just makes it clearer. And yes, you'll note that Ethnic Indian is a redirect; it redirects to an article about Indians outside of India. "Ethnic Foolander" has a different common meaning than "Foo ethnicity", regardless of the fact that both words derive from the same root. cab 07:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we've found common ground. I would agree with placing a note at the top of this article and redirecting Ethnic Japanese to it when we've decided on a new page title. Dekimasu 07:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Almost all those books listed have not disambiguated between Japanese nationals and Nikkei when using the term "ethnic Japanese", so using those books does not offer any conclusion to common usage. The fact that a quarter referred to mainland nationals is telling of how off and ambiguous the usage is. Why was google books used anyway? Google search prefers Nikkei.

Results in google for Ethnic Japanese is a straight 65,900 (this is inflated due to incorrect parsing and people reffering to Japanese nationals also). Results for Nikkei, disambiguated (to avoid conflict with the nikkei market and companies/names, which would net 21,300,000 articles for nikkei alone) and the respective ethnic Japanese counterpart under it:

• nikkei "japanese american" - 70,200

"ethnic Japanese" "japanese american" 10,800

• nikkei immigrants - 62,000

"ethnic Japanese" immigrants - 22,400

• nikkei "japanese american" OR "Japanese Brazilian" - 73,300

"ethnic Japanese" "japanese american" OR "Japanese Brazilian" - 11,600

• nikkei immigrants OR "japanese american" - 118,000

"ethnic Japanese" immigrants OR "japanese american" - 20,800

• nikkei immigrants OR "japanese american" OR "Japanese Brazilian" - 120,000

"ethnic Japanese" immigrants OR "japanese american" OR "Japanese Brazilian" - 21,000

• nikkei "asian american" OR "Japanese american" OR "Japanese Brazilian" OR immigrants OR "Japanese person" - 133,000

"ethnic Japanese" "asian american" OR "Japanese american" OR "Japanese Brazilian" OR immigrants OR "Japanese person" - 22,600

falsedef 02:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Google books (not fully disambiguated, since it still may refer to Japanese peoples as a whole, which puts searches in "ethnic Japanese" favor, yet "ethnic Japanese" still loses):

• nikkei "immigrants" - 165

"ethnic japanese" "immigrants" - 117

• nikkei "Japanese American" OR "japanese brazilian" - 212

"ethnic japanese" "Japanese American" OR "japanese brazilian" - 79

falsedef 02:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 15:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

Ethnic Japanese → Nikkei people — Current title is confusing because it has the same meaning as Japanese people - that is, people with Japanese ethnicity. The contents indicate that this article concerns only people with Japanese ethnicity living outside of Japan; the specific term for this is Nikkei. Dekimasu 06:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

To closing admin: I still think the arguments for using "Nikkei" outweigh those against, but please close this as no consensus rather than do not move so we can move to a title (probably Japanese diaspora) that will bring all but one of the oppose votes on-board. Dekimasu 02:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

1. Support as nominator. Dekimasu 07:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. Or Nikkeijin (to avoid having to put a parenthetical disambiguator after "Nikkei"). However oppose redirecting Ethnic Japanese to Japanese people; it should redirect to Nikkeijin or whatever we call it, and we can put an "otheruses" hatnote on that article for the minority of people who go there expecting the term means plain old "Japanese people" (and as the Google Books search above demonstrates, this is a minority usage). cab 07:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

   I am fine with Nikkeijin, but some editors and policies prefer English whenever possible. Since Nikkei is a recognized adjective in English, I chose Nikkei people. Dekimasu 07:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Support I support any Nikkei derivative -- Ethnic Japanese is an incorrect term to describe this article. falsedef 09:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Support — The proposed title will perfectly match the current contents of this article. We already have an article about "Ethnic Japanese" in Japanese people, and this move will insure that the 2 topics will be kept separate.--Endroit 10:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support "Nikkei people" is less confusing than "Ethnic Japanese". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

   Comment BTW, "Nikkei people" gets 666 Google hits (and only 7 hits in print), roughly 2% as many as "Nikkeijin". So following WP:UE in this case would involve using a neologism/protologism as the article title. (Not to mention the eschatological consequences). Also along the lines of recent moves like Korean people to Koreans, if we call it "Nikkei people", I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of people then came in and pushed for the article to be moved to "Nikkeis" (sic). cab 23:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

1. Oppose. WP:UE seems to prohibit the use of Nikkei as the term is not in common use outside of the Japanese community. If there is a problem with Ethnic Japanese as a title, then perhaps Ethnic Japanese outside of Japan, or some other term, would be acceptable, but Nikkei is not. The only exposure most non-Japanese people have to the work Nikkei is Nikkei 225. --Bobblehead 08:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose per WP:UE and above. The current configuration is fine (cf. Germans / ethnic Germans) or a change could be made to Japanese people / Japanese diaspora (already a redirect and cf. Russians / Russian diaspora). —  AjaxSmack  06:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

   Comment. As noted already above, Ethnic Germans may soon be merged into Germans. The problems with the title are inherent in its first line: "Ethnic Germans – often simply called Germans..." I don't think Japanese diaspora ("Japanese diaspora" -Wikipedia, 800 Ghits) is a bad title, but I fail to see why we should substitute a term that no one uses for a term that some people do use (Nikkeijin -Wikipedia, 28k Ghits). Dekimasu 06:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

   I highly doubt that Ethnic Germans would "soon" be merged. The merge tag has been in place since 6 weeks ago and no one's done anything about it. Also there's a hatnote on Germans requesting that Ethnic Germans be split from that article ... and again, a Google search on the term "ethnic german" will show you how people actually use it, which is not the same thing as "German ethnicity". cab 07:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose as a Midwestern US college drop out, i'm probably in the realm of the average wikipedian reader. Ethnic japanese- I would get. Even Japanese diaspora - I would get. Nikkeijin- No way. And this is the English encyclopedia, so we should keep foreign language titles to the absolute min. 205.157.110.11 23:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose It's not confusing at all. Take a look at the definition, wikt:Ethnic. Doctor Sunshine 22:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

   Comment. That is a concise definition of why it is confusing. While there are second and third definitions that generally describe this article, the first directly describes the article Japanese people. This really needs to be moved somewhere, even if it is Japanese diaspora, but the question is where to move it. Dekimasu 02:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   You're over complicating things. It's silly to think every definition of a word should apply to every use. The context is quite clear, and ethic most often describes a foreign or subculture within a larger culture. Ethnic food, ethnic group, etc. Surely everyone's time can be better spent on things other than quibbling over semantics. Doctor Sunshine 04:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   Per the naming conventions, we are supposed to use the best title that is not ambiguous. This is ambiguous because Japanese people living in Japan are part of the ethnic group called ethnic Japanese. That's all. Dekimasu 04:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   That's still semantics. It doesn't confuse me. Policy also stipulates the common name is used. http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/ethnic+Japanese Doctor Sunshine 05:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   The page you linked cites this article in order to define "ethnic Japanese". Maybe you can find another source, but that's not the one you want. Let me put the problem another way: if the article Japanese people was at this title, it wouldn't be wrong. And yet that article isn't here. Dekimasu 11:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   From the introduction to the naming conventions page you linked: "If we ignore potential ambiguity, the ideal of simplicity can be at odds with the ideal of precision." Dekimasu 11:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   Heh, I didn't notice it was referenced from Wikipedia, can't get away from this place. Still, a Websters editor must have approved that, I can't image they're randomly grabbing things from the Internet. I don't find "ethnic Japanese" ambiguous, I'd assumed it to refer to exactly what it does and what the Webster's definition names its usual use. Here, diaspora (I assume you're not arguing for nikkei anymore) is a more obscure synonym. By your logic "Japanese" could refer to anything, maybe people will think this article is about sushi or anime. Should the title have been expanded to "ethnic Japanese people"? Give the rest of us some credit. If you're really concerned perhaps an otheruses tag could be added but a move isn't necessary or beneficial. Doctor Sunshine 21:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

   Japanese is a disambiguation page for the same reason, yes. It could refer to Japanese language or Japanese people, and so we don't use the title for either. But that was not the change I proposed, because "ethnic" is a problem here. It may be the way you usually use the term, but it is not the way everyone uses the term. And yes, I think the title Chinese in Japan is ambiguous and should be changed. Dekimasu 03:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

   Let me put this another way. You think it's not confusing, but a lot of people - let's be fair and say half, according to the votes above - think it is confusing. The threshhold for a primary use claim based on links is usually 80-90%, so I think it's clear that there is a problem. You think we should argue about other things. In that case, why not just redirect this to Japanese diaspora with an otheruses tag at the top of the page for Japanese people (along the lines of what was suggested by this article's main contributor) and be done with it. Dekimasu 03:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Use English?

Ethnic Japanese outside of Japan is actually less accurate, because it would also refer to Japanese citizens. Nikkei is often used in English contexts, and is included in some dictionaries, including Webster's. In academia we have, for example, Encyclopedia of Japanese Descendants in the Americas: An Illustrated History of Nikkei, Akemi Kikumura-Yano, ed. (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2002); or the International Nikkei Research Project. I don't think a less-accurate term should be substituted. Also note Gaijin (not "Foreigners in Japan"); Zainichi Koreans (not "Koreans in Japan"); Dekasegi (not "Ethnic Japanese who emigrated from Japan and then returned to Japan"); Issei, Nisei, and Sansei. Even if you disallow Nikkei as English, WP:UE allows for transliterations in cases in which there is not an established English term for the topic. Dekimasu 09:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-read the article and correct your comment? This article and the article on Japanese people make it clear that this article covers both Japanese citizens living abroad and people of Japanese descent that are not Japanese citizens. Actually, looks like I need to reread the article.--Bobblehead 09:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If this article is only supposed to cover non-Japanese citizens of Japanese descent living outside of Japan, then it needs a rewrite as it makes several references to Japanese citizens living abroad. A specific example would be the second paragraph of the introduction. I'm also curious how one plans to exclude Japanese citizens living abroad from any definition of Japanese ethnicity. Many countries do not require you to renounce your citizenship to your country of origin in order to become a citizen of that country and Japan does not revoke your citizenship if you become a citizen of another country (unless it's an "enemy state" of course). As it is currently written, it also appears that the article covers Japanese citizens that emigrate to other countries, so a person with resident alien status would be covered by this article. Additionally, the examples you gave are terms that are limited to Japan, or are commonly used outside of Japan, while this article seems to cover a topic that is specifically not related to Japan and the term you wish to use is not commonly used outside of the ethnic Japanese communities.--Bobblehead 09:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my understanding is that Japanese people cannot hold dual citizenship after they come of age, but that the Japanese government is lax in enforcing that rule. I am not sure of the intended scope of this article (per previous contributors) as pertains to Japanese citizens, so I have retracted that comment. At any rate, the idea is not to exclude them from the idea of Japanese ethnicity; the broad concept of "Japanese ethnicity" is already covered at Japanese people, and clarification of that is one of the main reasons to rename this article. As such, debating WP:UE might be more useful than talking about citizenship. Dekimasu 10:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately discussing the scope of the article may be the only way to resolve the issue. If I'm understanding the purpose of this article, it is to describe the history of ethnic Japanese living outside of Japan and not the history of the term Nikkeijin. It also seems to me that this history includes that of Japanese emigrants (permanent resident aliens or naturalized citizens of another country, not tourists). Based on that understanding and my understanding that Nikkeijin generally excludes Japanese citizens living abroad it would seem that naming this article Nikkeijin would be an inaccurate term. Just a note, I don't known Japanese, so I'm basing the understanding of what Nikkeijin means on the explanation in these articles, so if I'm wrong, correct me. As far as WP:UE, there is an english equivalent for Nikkeijin. Just have to figure out what the scope of the article and adjust accordingly. --Bobblehead 11:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

In Japanese, the idea that Nikkei excludes Japanese citizens is not explicit, and technically the meaning includes anyone of Japanese heritage. In practice, Japanese speakers use the word to contrast "foreign" Japanese people with "normal" Japanese people. That is, all Japanese people are Nikkei, but most of the time they are referred to as Japanese (i.e. nihonjin); if Japanese speakers go out of their way to talk about overseas Japanese people, they use the term nikkeijin. Because it is this usage that was introduced into English, and since those people who retain their citizenship generally intend to return to Japan, the "Nikkei" term is not generally applied to Japanese citizens overseas. I believe the key point is whether there is a self-identification as an expatriate, or rather as an immigrant. However, "Japanese emigrants" is also inaccurate because it includes the descendants of the emigrants themselves. Since there is this self-referential component and there are clear examples of its use in English, I find it hard to say it shouldn't be used on Wikipedia.

As for this article, the part of the introduction you referred to was copied from a section on "Japanese people abroad" in the Japanese people article. The separately was meant to convey that that part did not apply to the term nikkeijin, but it was copied over here as well. I think that was a mistake and the second paragraph of the introduction should be removed; in fact, I'll do it now. Dekimasu 11:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I should also note that the Japanese Wikipedia does not mention the inclusive usage of the term (anyone of Japanese heritage). That is only mentioned in my Japanese dictionary, though it is also clear from the etymology of the word. Dekimasu 11:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you use Raw fish instead of Sashimi, just because it's not English? Just because a word isn't well known doesn't mean it shouldn't be used. It's a poor excuse for replacing correct article names with superfluous editor-fabricated ones. Japanese have a precise and well defined meaning for Japanese emigrants. Japanese diaspora can be redirected to Nikkeijin. falsedef 04:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Nikkeijin vs Nikkei people vs Nikkeis

Incidentally, "Nikkeis" is very common in Portuguese (Nikkeis 45k ghits), but almost as unknown in English as "Nikkei people" (Nikkeis -sobre -para 934 ghits). cab 23:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What about "Japanese diaspora"?

Please consider the unambiguous Japanese diaspora instead of a possibly non-English and largely unknown term. (cf. Russian diaspora) —  AjaxSmack  06:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Japanese diaspora ("Japanese diaspora" -Wikipedia, 800 Ghits) is a bad title, but I fail to see why we should substitute a term that no one uses for a term that some people do use (Nikkeijin -Wikipedia, 28k Ghits). Dekimasu 06:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 15:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion after move to Japanese diaspora

I thought the point of wikipedia was to be factual? Yet you've chosen to be less "confusing" and wrong rather than precise and correct. Why was there even an argument to fabricate a term among editors, which borders on OR? falsedef 21:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering that there was never any suggestion to remove the redirect from this page to the new title, I'm surprised that there was much opposition... but there was, and the discussion didn't end in consensus, so it seems like the best we can do now is move this to Japanese diaspora. Dekimasu 07:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe any amount of consensus overrides the first pillar of Wikipedia, accuracy and no OR. falsedef 03:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

*Note: This was the point at which the article was moved.

I have moved the page to Japanese diaspora and taken care of the double redirects. If you regard it as a halfway solution, I will vote with you again. As far as I'm concerned, feel free to take any measures you think are warranted. Dekimasu 05:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thing I'd also like to point out: even though the Spanish Wikipedia has a policy similar to WP:UE, namely Wikipedia:Convenciones de títulos#Títulos en español, the article there is at es:Nikkei. And my understanding of WP:UE is that it's there to justify Vienna instead of Wien, Moscow instead of Moskva, and the like (because those are traditional and widespread English translations); it's not supposed to be a license for Wikipedians to make up their own translations of terms which are accepted by experts. cab 12:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought we had agreed that the term was more well-established in those languages than it is in English. However, I agree with you completely. Ignorance of the accurate term is no excuse not to put the page in the right place, and redirects are cheap. Dekimasu 12:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Poor show. There was hardly a consensus, this is clearly still controversial, the page should not have been moved. Diaspora can just as easily imply that they fled or were dispelled from Japan. How is that any less "ambiguous" than ethnic? Plus, to quote Dekimasu, diaspora is a term "no one uses". I'm calling for Dekimasu to revert his changes. The Japanese people article lists this as the main article for Japanese living abroad, diaspora's no good, however, ethnic is still common usage (as illustrated at the top of this page) and, to keep things interesting, I will throw Japanese expatriate into the mix. Doctor Sunshine 04:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to replace the title that was already causing problems with a title that only you (Doctor Sunshine) and I objected to. With less ten people in the discussion, five supported a move to Nikkei, and two explictly noted that they would change their votes for a title that was better established in English. If there is a better way to deal with the results of the vote, I am once again open to other options. However, the presumption of a suggestion to move is that the page should be moved, and there was a clear majority that noted the problems with the ethnic title. I see lots of voices discussing where the page should be, but no strong push to see it where it was. Dekimasu 12:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, there was no consensus. Plus, this article is not just about the people here, it's here for Wikipedia as a whole. Again, please revert you changes and place a proper move request. Doctor Sunshine 19:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right. It is not a democracy, so I should not refer to the numbers explicitly. Let's look at the arguments, then. We had people who said:

• 1. Ethnic Japanese is confusing, while Nikkei is accurate and precise.
• 2. Ethnic Japanese is confusing, but Nikkei should be avoided due to WP:UE.
• 3. Ethnic Japanese is not confusing. (Note: there were no arguments that that title was accurate or precise.)

In such a situation, I don't see how the supporters of stance #3 can justify their stance that the title isn't confusing. We know it is confusing, because there are people in groups 1 and 2. Thus, on the weight of arguments, the page required a name change. I asked the closing admin to close the move as "no consensus" rather than "do not move" in order to reflect this, and that's what happened. We know that the article is here for Wikipedia as a whole; the editors who took part in the vote represent a cross-section of Wikipedia users, even if that cross-section is imperfect. Dekimasu 06:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity does not refer to solely emigrants, and is incorrect usage. If this article is called Ethnic Japanese, then it'd be referring to Japanese still residing in Japan as much as those outside. Diaspora does not mean expelled -- that may be your interpretation due to the term used among Jews. The article should use none your suggested terms, and neither diaspora, though diaspora would be more correct than ethnic (expatriate includes Japanese temporarily residing in Japan, which would run into the same troubles of using ethnic). Anthropologically speaking, the most correct and best term would be nikkei, with emigrant as a close second. The masses of people using ethnicity to refer to emigrants are wrong on its usage and should have their respective articles moved. falsedef 05:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I said ethnic is common use. You may consider a common usage noun phrase wrong but that doesn't change the fact that it's the common term. And it's only my definition of diaspora (click that), is it?[2] (click that too, and while your at it click here and pay special attention to the esp.) Regarding expatriate, this article doesn't cover Japanese people "temporarily" living outside of Japan? This article only covers people who will never move back or are not allowed to? Is that what I'm hearing? Doctor Sunshine 07:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That is part of the focus that we have lost by not using the accurate title. The temporary/permanent distinction is used to separate the groups as far as self-identification is concerned, so I don't see why a different rubric should be used to distinguish them. The key point as regards the previous title is that it clearly exhibited the danger of a risk of confusion, which is precisely the kind of problem that the guidelines at WP:DAB are meant to deal with. Anyway, I think we should agree to stop referring to the dictionary. Before you argued against definition #1 of ethnic, and now you are arguing against the common usage of diaspora by citing the dictionary. Please rather try to help us find a name that you are comfortable with, since it is apparent that a good number of editors take issue with this title as well. Dekimasu 12:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry we can't make everyone happy but common use is common use. Alternate terms and a clear summary in the lead is the best one can hope for. And I used the dictionary to support my point, surely you're not telling me that the dictionary definitions are irrelevant? You're twisting my word by saying that I argued against a dictionary definition, my point was that the common use is ethnic Japanese which, as I've mentioned, is illustrated at the top of this page by cab. I've also already provided an alternate in Japanese expatriate. And since three times is a charm, let me repeat: please revert your changes. Doctor Sunshine 19:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that we can't make everyone happy, too. I made a move that I wasn't particularly happy with because it did reflect the weight of the opinions given above. You might also note that this was an unblocked move when I originally brought the Nikkei people title up for a vote; I am not avoiding discussion. For six days after I proposed a move to Japanese diaspora in the comments on your vote, you lodged no objection. Then I made the move.

As far as dictionaries are concerned, I was pointing out that you argued against the common usage of diaspora based on a technical definition, and argued for the common usage of ethnic but ignored the technical definition. I noted a methodological problem with cab's sources last month, as you can see below the list of books. "Japanese expatriates" are not the main focus of this article - in fact, they are not discussed at all. And the Nikkei terminology excludes them. Dekimasu 06:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The dictionary defines both the Jewish terminology and the general terminology, which is mass migration. At the current moment, you're arguing against diaspora, yet offering another incorrect term expatriate (temporary immigrants are not part of the article). How does that help us any? What makes you special that we favor your suggestion over diaspora -- kinda pointless isn't it? Incorrect terminology is not to be used just because it is common (there's a difference between a neologism and incorrect word usage). Here are some examples of incorrectly used terms that are more common than their actual terminology: Rollerblade-Inline skates, Frisbee-Flying disc, Raw fish-Sashimi (most often referred to as Sushi), Correlate-Causation, Internet-World Wide Web, Web address-URL-URI, Race-Species, Impeachment-Conviction, etc. Incorrect terms should not be substituted for correct words, even if common. If this article is moved back to Ethnic Japanese, I'll religiously edit it to make sure that the article is clear that Ethnic Japanese is an incorrect term. falsedef 20:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[Removed my comment, due to perceived inflammatory nature. falsedef 06:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)]

Thank you for bringing in more information (the Google searches). I'm not sure that the final comment will draw opponents into the discussion, though. Instead, what course of action do you suggest? Dekimasu 06:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I fear that my participation in the discussion is alienating Doctor Sunshine, so I will now withdraw unless/until someone makes a clear proposal about further changes to the page name. However, I do not intend to revert the page move, which has already taken care of one of the problems with the previous title (ambiguity). Dekimasu 06:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not as experienced dealing with conflicts, so I'd take suggestions on how to convince people (at least those with the ability to resolve the matter) in order to reach a valid resolution. I usually try to stay on the sidelines in established articles -- this one has concerned me enough as both an anthropologist and a Japanese-American. If not nikkei [people], at least an equally appropriate term needs to be used. Currently the article names for Germans and Japanese emigrants are coming under fire (both using incorrect terminology), and I don't understand why the pro-"ethnic" terminology conflict has latched onto these two groups. I can only hope that people will realize that nikkei is a more common than they believe, especially among the Japanese-American historians and the JA community (a major portion of which is being defined) and that ethnicity has a specific meaning which is being misused in these cases. falsedef 06:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion after move back to Ethnic Japanese

falsedef, manners! You've been rude and hostile since you got here. You're going to "religiously edit" the page? Be my guest, vandalize and disrupt it all you like, let's see how far that gets you. You want to know how to resolve conflicts? Lesson one: Don't be a dick. Until you can learn that there's no reason for me to waste my time with you.

Dekimasu, you haven't alienated me. You've tried my patience but you haven't alienated me. Again you selectively address the points I've raised, and those you do address you twist in a bizarre and erroneous manner. The move is clearly controversial. Move blocks are irrelevant. I don't have any numbers on me but consensus historically doesn't require 100%; if, as you claim, Japanese diaspora is a shoe in then it should pass no problem. For this reason, because diaspora is an obscure term has as many definitions as ethnic and because you refuse to do so, I will revert your move. Anyone is welcome to place a move request to any of the suggested titles or something better. I'll state my thoughts one last time as clearly as possible:

1. Ethnic Japanese. a) Japanese living abroad (common use.) b) Japanese everywhere. c) Perhaps Japanese cuisine or culture.
2. Japanese diaspora. a) Japanese living abroad. b) Japanese expelled from their homeland. c) The land of a or b. (Note: there is no common use as "no one uses" the term.)
3. Japanese expatriate a) Japanese living abroad (Why it doesn't work: Apparently that they may return to Japan invalidates them?)
4. Japanese living abroad (Why it won't work: ???)
5. Nikkei people a) Japanese living abroad (Why it won't work: WP:NC(UE) as there are plenty of English noun phrase equivalents as above.)
6. Non-resident Japanese and Person of Japan Origin a) Japanese living abroad (Why it won't work: Too long?)

Basically, aside form any subtle shadings, these all refer to the subject of this article. I consider ethnic Japanese accurate and precise because simply that's how I, and many, many others, learned it. Yes, it can be used to refer to Japanese people everywhere but logically it should be expected that an encyclopedia would us a more direct term for that (like Japanese people). This may help: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Basically the relevant points are that one should not move an article because one learned another word or phrase for the subject and that instead of arguing over semantics it's better to pour that energy into adding and improving the articles content. Dekimasu's comments here alone are longer than this start class article. Imagine if that effort had been channeled into improving the article. Look at Talk:Humour/Spelling and then look how awkward the Humour article is. It's the same deal. Let's move on. Doctor Sunshine 23:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As shown, ethnic Japanese is NOT common usage compared to nikkei. Your move is unwarranted. falsedef 02:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have provided sources for the terminology on the article space, and common usage evidence on the talk page. Please provide your evidence for "ethnic Japanese" usage. If you fail to provide adequate/scholarly sources and continue to press on after acknowledging this, I will call for mediation. If that fails to enact changes, I will call for arbitration. Please note, your sources should DIRECTLY state that "ethnic Japanese" = Japanese emigrant and descendent (or similar usage), or will be seen as the definition of both Japanese nationals and Japanese descendants. Do not remove my cites and information until you have provided proper evidence, otherwise I will give vandal warnings. falsedef 03:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, now I'm going to reinject myself with a proposal myself because I feel the discussion is falling apart. Condescension ("poor show", "this article is for Wikipedia", "manners!", "bizarre and erroneous") can get you referred to Don't be a dick as well. I don't really feel that the reversion was warranted, but the problem at hand is still the same. Concerning my contributions to this article, I first appeared on this talk page because people were incorrectly changing links from Japanese people (an article which I do work on quite a bit) to Ethnic Japanese. This showed me that there was a problem with the Ethnic Japanese title. And much of the original introduction to the article was harvested from Japanese people. Rather than talk about Japanese living abroad as a title or the other new replies to my comments, I'll skip ahead.

How do we feel about Overseas Japanese? For reference, I refer you to the construction of Overseas Chinese, with a redirect tag from Ethnic Chinese and a note on Chinese people at the top of the page. Then we can effectively delineate and broaden the scope of this article. After the introduction, the article can be divided into two main sections: one labelled "Nikkeijin/Nikkei/Nikkei people" (which would contain almost all of the content of the current article), and one labelled "Japanese nationals living abroad" (which can handle both expatriates, and people who aren't ethnic Japanese but hold Japanese nationality and live abroad). A third section could refer to historical issues, such as those Japanese people who were not allowed to return to the country when it was closed, or those who were persecuted after Christianity became controversial. Dekimasu 06:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Also note: "overseas Japanese" has 36,600 Ghits. And cab is an editor of the Overseas Chinese article, so it would be good to have his opinion. Dekimasu 07:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Overseas gains more hits; however, at the moment I will pursue the article to be changed to Nikkeijin or Nikkei people. The more I'm forced to get into the issue, the more I see the argument for Nikkeijin. The word can be sourced as defined in many documents referring specifically Japanese emigrants and their descendants within English and international documents. If the addition of temporary Japanese expatriates is included into the article, then I will agree to the use of Japanese Overseas. falsedef 07:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to add them, because it can both defuse the situation and add value to the article. I don't think anyone would have a problem using the self-identifying term within the article, particularly as it is fully explained by the text, so the portion on "Nikkeijin" could remain fairly independent. And I don't feel strongly about Japanese overseas as opposed to Overseas Japanese; I was just making a parallel. I think a somewhat larger portion of the Japanese overseas hits are referring to "Japanese overseas x" (companies, influence, etc.). If one was redirected to the other, it wouldn't be that big of a problem. Dekimasu 07:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Such an addition would be more of a tack on than anything. Even the Overseas Chinese article doesn't seem to talk about students or temporary residents outside China. I believe the term Nikkeijin is strong enough to stand on its own rather than hold an extra stub article (temporary residents) and become a different article. I don't want this issue to set a xenophobic precedent for discrimination against other (foreign) words despite their historical use in English. falsedef 07:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I also believe that if we reach arbitration, Nikkei will win, as I have the cites (most importantly!) and few dozen scholars (plus some university programs) ([3]) who agree upon its usage. falsedef 07:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the cites from the article space, here they are:

[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] falsedef 08:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that intentionally keeping them separate in order to use the Nikkei term could be seen as an inappropriate content fork. I favor the Nikkei term (both from an anthropological standpoint and as a result of my experiences in Japan), but I don't see xenophobia here, and we should solve this matter without arbitration if at all possible. The original move request was meant to alleviate confusion, and personally I'd be happy to see this article at any title that is accurate and precise. I'll once again compliment you for moving the sources over here while we consider the issue. Dekimasu 08:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I believe there isn't really a fork, since there isn't information about temporary residents in the article. It's really a retrograde content merge if we use Overseas Japanese or Japanese Overseas, which again I believe would be hard pressed to find a formal definition for (cited). It seems at the moment most other ethnic group articles covering ethnic emigration exclude temporary residents from their article space, and this would become the exception. Again, it's not so much that I'm opposed to moving it to Overseas Japanese, but rather opposed to the denial of Nikkei as an article name (i.e. even if this article became Overseas Japanese, I'd be content that there was acknowledgment that Nikkei could've been a proper title name). falsedef 08:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read the content fork article, and it seems to be meant for articles which duplicate their subject. In this case it wouldn't be a fork, since the information is separate (temporary residents, Japanese nationals abroad, and permanent, Nikkei people). If there were two articles on the same subject, then it'd be a fork. falsedef 03:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Some comments:

1. I'm not really sure that most other ethnic group articles covering ethnic emigration exclude temporary residents from their article space. At least on the xyz-American articles, there's not really any division of articles based on time of immigration. Excluding them might not make all that much sense, either, especially where immigration has been continuous, since new/temporary arrivals often blend into or at minimum have significant interaction with the community built up by the old immigrants and their descendants. Trying to make that division tends to involve a POV call on the distinction between an "immigrant" and an "expatriate".
2. The one exception I'm aware of is the one I created, Koryo-saram and Sakhalin Koreans, which cover two separate groups of Koreans in the former Soviet Union with almost entirely divergent immigration histories and little interaction (and at the moment, neither article covers the third major group of Koreans in the Soviet Union, North Korean citizens).
3. To Dekimasu: The name "Overseas Chinese" was adopted as the result of a translation of a Chinese term, as far as I remember. It's become established academic terminology, but it still causes problems since there's always someone trying to argue that Chinese in Russia, Mongolia, India, Korea, Burma, France, et cetera ad nauseum, aren't really "Overseas". This might be less of a problem in the Japanese case, since Japan is an island, but I'm sure there's someone out there on teh Internets who has the time and brick-headedness to put up a case that the Tsushima Strait isn't really a sea (and hence Japanese people in Korea, China, and across the whole of Eurasia and Africa aren't in fact "overseas"). cab 10:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure what else I can contribute here, except my opinion that WP:UE is being drastically over-applied to things it was never intended to apply to, not just here but all over Wikipedia (e.g. Category:Gu of Seoul, or AfDs on referenced articles about foreign slang on the grounds that they're not used in English, etc). cab 10:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification upon the Overseas Chinese article. I believe "xyz American" articles do refer solely to those who reside permanently in America or are raised/born there. though necessarily an "exclusion" from the article space, it does not fit within it. Temporary visitors to America aren't really referred to as American, as they are not seeking residency or citizenship (a Japanese citizen studying at an American university would still be considered Japanese rather than Japanese American). I believe it makes more sense to keep these groups separate (visitors versus perm residents), as transient residents are still regarded to be part of their nation/ethnicity of origin. falsedef 03:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've provided citations for Nikkei and Japanese diaspora, but Nikkei seems to be overwhelmingly more common (by google book and web search) name in academics, research groups, and also accepted among the English speaking Japanese-American community and their respective organizations plus the international community [30][31][32]. Since WP:OR and WP:V are core policies, I'm requesting an administrator to move the article to Nikkei people. Until cites or evidence are provided contrary to the name "Nikkei people" being well defined for this article and more common than "ethnic Japanese", I believe this move is the correct one.

I'm really sorry it's come to this point -- when the article was moved to Japanese diaspora, I felt it in bad taste, but was willing to let the issue go; however, the moving of the article back to "ethnic Japanese" has prompted me to get further into the issue than I wanted. falsedef 03:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary of Points Regarding article name

I've created a summary of points, feel free to add any of your points, and cites (add one to the article space also). falsedef 03:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for Ethnic Japanese

• More common English name
  • Rebuttal: needs evidence, currently unverified, violates WP:OR and WP:V, Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; all articles and policies must follow Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. This is not a vote.

Arguments against use of "ethnic Japanese"

• "Ethnic Japanese" is ambiguous, as Japanese ethnicity would define Japanese people (including lineage and culture). Ethnicity is technically being used more broadly in this case (those with lineage but not shared culture or location), without verified distinction.
• Ethnic Japanese is not as common as originally thought, as shown by a more thorough results in Google searching of websites and books.
• By using a term that is unverified, this article would break two of three of Wikipedia's core policies (verifiability and no OR).

Arguments for Nikkei people

• Nikkei (people) is used academically, supported by both the Japanese American National Museum, and affiliates throughout East Asian and Asian American academic units [33][34][35] -- nikkei's definition can be verified and research about Nikkei (Japanese emigrants and their descendants) are abundantly found in English.
• Nikkei is also used among both English speaking Japanese (Japanese-Americans) and the international Japanese community (Brazil, Japan, as Nikkeijin) as their own respective name.
• Other easily derived names can be redirected to the proper article name rather than qualify the article after the fact.

Arguments against Nikkei people

• Less inclusive
  • Rebuttal: dedicated research has been done upon nikkei, whereas more general terms are currently dubious
• Harder to search for among "common" populace
  • Rebuttal: other names can be redirected to the proper article name rather than qualify an incorrect name
• WP:UE
  • Rebuttal: as shown, Nikkei is actually used among English speakers and is in romanized English alphabet letters
• WP:Content_forking since it is purposefully excluding temporary residents
  • Rebuttal: Nikkei are a researched people and a subject on their own, temporary residents (Japanese citizens abroad) should be a separate article and would add little to the subject (currently there is no information about them in the article). Content forking are two separate versions of the same article subject with different view points (e.g. Japanese bad, Japanese good). Since Nikkei is already clearly defined, it is not a fork and would maintain its neutrality.

Arguments for Overseas Japanese or Japanese Expatriates and other names

• More correct than ethnic Japanese
• More inclusive, would allow the article to talk about a wider group range than just Nikkei
  • Rebuttal: Research upon general Japanese expatriates are currently dubious and may not provide much to the article
    • Rebuttal to Rebuttal: Dont' quite agree that Research upon general Japanese expatriates are currently dubious and may not provide much to the article; there is quite a bit of research on Japanese people in Hong Kong, for example, enough for me to write a decent-length article without even trying. And they're only a population of about 20000. See the bibliography there. cab 04:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Arguments against other names

• Nikkei is a more common name than "ethnic Japanese" and "Overseas Japanese", as resulted in mentioned Google searches. I'm under the assumption that research on overseas Japanese and Japanese expatriates are less of that of Nikkei
• By fabricating a new article name and using a term that is unverified, this article would break two of three of Wikipedia's core policies (verifiability and no OR).