Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Eugenics in Showa Japan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Comments

A message from ZayZayEM

I have a dropped a warning to FT about the wording of his "issues". I have encouraged him to initiate mediation as issues between him and User:Azukimonaka extend further back than before I got involved [1]. These two editors are not getting along well, and I am trying to encourage them to follow not productive steps and refrain from personal attacks and complaining.--ZayZayEM 01:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Warning

I agreed to this mediation in good faith while just before it even began, user:Azukimonaka started two other edit wars on Japanese expansionism and Eugenics. I suceeded in protecting the first while I agree to keep his deletions on the second even if they were done just after the mediation was called. However, if this user persists in trying to add this personal and cheap notice in Eugenics, I 'll simply withdraw from this process : «<--　Showa Japan is a section that Flying-Tyger personally added on October 20, 2007. This Main article is being discussed now. This article is concealed until the discussion ends..» --Flying tiger 13:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Diff [2]. --ZayZayEM 15:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed only the part that Flying-Tyger had added on October 20, 2007. You are putting the article on the discussion Eugenics in Showa Japan onEugenics. [3]Because this part is being discussed now. Will you wait until obtaining consensus?　--Azukimonaka 16:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Your mistake in Japanese expansionism was written in Talkpage. If you answer, I will temporarily approve the article that you added. --Azukimonaka 16:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Azukimonaka (talk • contribs) 16:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Another unjustified personal attack by user:Azukimonaka [[4]]. It looks as if this guy can do whatever he wants... --Flying tiger 18:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you escape from the question?　I hear the reason why you falsified the source. Please do not cheat shouting "personal attack! personal attack!".　--Azukimonaka 13:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Arguments

One of the main problems with editing here I see is the rise of arguments from nowhere.

Azukimonaka constantly asks questions that have no real basis in the text of the articles. Such as pointing out that Nagai Hisomu is not a serviceman - no one said he was.

He then complains when people ignore these discussions. People are ignoring them because they cannot comprehend them, or cannot see the relevance of the points you are bringing up.--ZayZayEM 04:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Then, who is the nationalist (militarist) who promotes Eugenics in Showa Japan?　--Azukimonaka 15:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Nationalist does not mean militarist. It means national pride. I would think a majority of Japan is nationalist. I think probably more so in Showa era. I think the misunderstanding may come from Japan being such a generally proud country, that the equivalent term is only reserved for militant groups. "Nationalist" in common English is not associated directly with militaristic intentions. One can readily be a pacifist nationalist.--ZayZayEM 23:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

Azukimonaka Ver

--Azukimonaka 18:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarify

"1946, Nagi Hisomu was confessed. The eugenics of Japan has not spread. Because Japanese nationalists did not understand the science. [15]"

:Please write the reason. --Azukimonaka 15:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Flyingtiger Ver

(Please note this version requires verification by FlyingTiger--ZayZayEM 03:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)) edited --ZayZayEM 22:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

  • 1907, Leprosy Prevention Laws permit the segregation of patients in sanitariums where forced abortions and sterilization were common and authorized punishment for patients "disturbing peace". [16]

Aazukimonaka objects to the opinion of Flying-Tyger. "Forced abortions and sterilization" was executed in 1948.

    • 1907, Leprosy Prevention Laws (癩予防ニ関スル件) purpose was to isolate wandering Leprosy patients. (癩患者ニシテ療養ノ途ヲ有セス且救護者ナキモノハ行政官癩ニ於テ命令ノ定ムル所ニ従ヒ療養所ニ入ラシメ之ヲ救護スベシ)
    • 1931, To isolate all Leprosy patients, Leprosy Prevention Laws　(癩予防法) was approved.[17] (行政官癩ハ癩予防上必要ト認ムル トキハ命令ノ定ムル所ニ従ヒ癩患者ニシテ病毒傅播ノ虞アルモノヲ国立癩療養所又ハ第4条ノ 規定ニ依リ設置スル療養所ニ入所セシムルベシ)
    • 1940, The Diet passes The National Eugenic Law(国民優性法). The patient was not sterilized because Leprosy had been thought to be an epidemic. (This law is a law to remove an inferior inheritance. )
    • 1948, Leprosy and Haemophilia were compulsorily sterilized by Eugenic Protection Law. [18]
    • 1953, Leprosy Prevention Laws (らい予防法) was approved. [19]　The patient was compulsorily isolated. 　　--Azukimonaka 20:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Leprosy Prevention Laws is a law concerning the Leprosy patient's accommodation. Eugenics is not related.
    • I think that I should remove the topic of Leprosy from Eugenics in Showa Japan. --Azukimonaka 08:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • 1910, Under the colonial Korean Leprosy prevention ordinance, Korean patients are subjected to hard labor. [20]
  • 1942, Marriage between Koreans and Japanese is discouraged. A survey report argues that "the Korean laborers brought to Japan, where they have established permanent residency, are of the lower classes and therefore of inferior constitution...By fathering children with Japanese women, these men could lower the caliber of the Yamato minzoku" (English translation pls) [21]
  • 1945, Under the Higashikuni goevrnment the Home Ministry orders local government offices to establish a prostitution service for allied soldiers to preserve the "purity" of the "Japanese race".(Herbert Bix, Hirohito and the making of modern Japan, 2001, p. 538, citing Kinkabara Samon and Takemae Eiji, Showashi : kokumin non naka no haran to gekido no hanseiki-zohoban, 1989, p.244 .)[22]

The above list was originally added by user:Azukimonaka on 8 november and attributed to me [[23]] The lined excerpts were added in the article by users other than me. --Flying tiger 19:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

They are the parts where Azukimonaka deletes, and Flying Tiger repeated the revival. --Azukimonaka 20:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization of sections in this rfm talk page

This is completely messed up and going nowhere. The sections in this page have been reorganized so that we could first address all the issues that the concerned parties are arguing, and try to build a consensus for each. --Saintjust (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The title and the scope of the article

Is this topic limited to Eugenics at the Japanese expansionism (1926-1945). Or, does this topic contain Eugenics at the Showa period (1926–1989)? -(unsigned) Azukimonaka

The article says Showa period. Perhaps it could be changed to 20th century?--ZayZayEM 00:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
If you hope for the history of a Japanese medicine of the 20th century, I make Timeline. --Azukimonaka 07:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Creating an article for eugenics (or whatever else for that matter) in every period of several decades for every country would be ridiculous. --Saintjust 04:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
It is only in Japan that was divided from Eugenics. --Azukimonaka 07:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
This mediation is not about topic change or article deletion, it is about a war edit. There is indeed an article for Nazi eugenics. I do not see any problem to keep the article subject and refer to Meiji, Taisho and early Showa as an "origins" section, followed by two main sections about the war and "after the war", with a conclusion about abolition [[24]].--Flying tiger 13:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition at period

How shall we agree?　--Azukimonaka 14:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think all users involved should refrain from summarising other editors views. Mal-communication has been a large issue between us. User Azukimonaka, I suggest you retract this summary with <s> </s> tags--ZayZayEM 15:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you opposite to the definition of this article?　--Azukimonaka 17:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess Azukimonaka suspects that the scope of the article was arbitrarily decided. Suppose there is an international topic. Wikipedia would have a general article about it. If some countries have much to write about the topic, we would create country-specific articles. Reducing the scope into a specific period of time and one country would be justified only if extremely noteworthy.

In the case of eugenics, the sub-article of Eugenics is not Eugenics in Japan but Eugenics in Showa Japan. This is not natural. One may suspect they have ulterior motives behind it. The supporters of the current framework should have very good reasons for it. --Nanshu 09:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I will not oppose any moves to more loose title for this article, such as simply "in Japan" or "in 20th century Japan". This will not remove any content from the article. Nor will it change the focus from primarily 1900-1950 WWII-era activities.--ZayZayEM 14:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this may be a good idea for all "何々 in Showa Japan" articles. Change to either simply "Japan" or "20th century Japan". Showa is not a term most English speakers will recognise.--ZayZayEM 14:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
ZayZayEM, How about making a comment on Saintjust's proposal at Talk:Eugenics in Showa Japan#Renaming the article? --Nanshu (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly do not think the article title is a main problem. There is so many problem of content, why focus only on this ? The eugenics laws were adopted in 1940 and 1948, the leprosy laws were adopted in 1907, 1931, 1953. Except for 1907, all this is included in the Shōwa era (1926-1989). Shigenori Ikeda and Hisomu Nagai began their activities precisely at the beginning of the Shōwa era. As explained by many authors such as Mrs. Robertson, eugenism, as part of the scientific revolution, was linked to nationalism and empire building, which precisely characterize the showa expansionism.

So, if it is not in the title, simply for scientific accuracy, a reference to the Showa era would have to be made in the lead or in the article as it is the core of period covered by the political and legislative measures. Let's wait and see after we have agree on the content if there is really a need to be less specific in the title but I cannot see how Eugenics in Japan would be more useful ...--Flying tiger 16:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nagai Hisomu was a Eugenics Activist. This is political. No one has said he was a serviceman. No one is calling him a nationalist or a fascist, but I would find it hard to deny this outright (especially the former). Eugenicism is often motivated by nationalist pride, in addition to fascism (a sense of superiority) and often xenophobia. Nationalism nor Fascism are inheritly bad ideals.--ZayZayEM 04:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Than you for clarification. I do think that the article title is the critical problem because an arbitrary framework is a source of unnecessary content disputes.
So you attempt to link eugenics of Japan to "nationalism and empire building" by the title of "Eugenics in Showa Japan", right? I disagree with you for two reasons. First, "Showa" isn't a good modifier for your purpose. World War II and the the so-called "Showa expansionism" ended in 1945, that is Showa 20. The subsequent time of the Showa era lasted more than 40 years. If you cover post-WWII events because they by definition belong to "Showa Japan" but still try to associate eugenics of Japan with "nationalism and empire building", it's double standard. Then you are not in good faith. Second, it's POV pushing. There are views against your position. [27] is an example. It says that before the end of WWII eugenics wasn't effectively enforced because of strong opposition and that eugenics became in force and effect only after WWII. If you try to drop opposite views by the current framework, then you are not in good faith (again). --Nanshu 00:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for arguing I'm no good faith. I though I met an interesting newcomer in the discussion but you sounds more like Azukimonaka. I never argued anything about what you wrote above. Eveybody knows that Shōwa (1945-1989) is not linked with militarism... Is it more "good faith" to call the article Eugenics in Imperial Japan' even if almost nothing is related to Meiji or Taisho or only "in Japan" even if almost only the Showa era is covered ? "Nationalism and empire building" comes from Jennifer Robertson for the origin of eugenics, not me. What are you so scared about refering to a clear time era even if this era is divided in two different period ? Besides, I don't give a damn, I just think it is historically more accurate and that the content would be more important than wasting our time on title. ..--Flying tiger 04:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is that as I stated above, Eugenics in Japan is the natual country-specific sub-article of Eugenics. The article titlte shouldn't assert too much. To keep the current title Eugenics in Showa Japan, we should have very good reasons. But so far, you fail to provide them. Contrary to your assumption, User:ZayZayEM considers that Showa is not a term most English speakers will recognise. (I'm not sure about that since I'm dinitely not an "average" English speaker.)
Anyway, I take your comment as a promise: you will not eliminate or marginalize post-WWII topics on the grounds that they are out of the scope of the article. OK? --Nanshu (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
As a newcomer in the discussion, you must understand that this article is a work in progress. If you consult the history of the article, you will see that for two years, it was a little thing with two or three paragraphs without ANY reference and ALL related to the Greater East Asia War. After adding sources we discovered that eugenics policy were still going on after the war. So, why would anybody would "eliminate" or "marginalize" post-war topics as it is precisely the inverse that is happening ? For the name, I am not Japanese and I my feeling is that a vague "Japan" asserts more than "Showa Japan" as it imply that those policies were part of ALL japanese history... --Flying tiger (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Not many articles on Wikipedia have "xxx in yyy period" in their titles, and nobody complains about the possible implication of ALL zzz history. It's as absurd as creating separate articles for war crimes during the Kennedy administration, war crimes during the Bush administration, etc. The use of "Showa" in the title of this article is simply unnecessary, incorrect, inappropriate, and/or ignorant. --61.202.37.174 (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The specific title is not needed. It is unclear. And it does seem to be causing a problem. A focus on a specific period (with possible motives) before painting a broader picture is definitely misleading. Eugenics in Japan do not seem to be tied to any particular era, a political, military or scientific group (such as Nazis), but a general mishmash of societal pressure - Much like the US and other non-european countries. I think articles such as Eugenics in Japan, National Eugenic Law, Eugenic marriage counseling center, Japanese Society of Health and Human Ecology, Nagi Hisomu, Eugenic Protection Law and Mother's Body Protection Law would paint a much better (as in clearer) picture than (unnecessarily) focusing it towards the WWII-period (which appears to be limiting article content). I am losing my faith in the "X in Showa Japan" articles as neutrally intended articles, and not WP:POVFORKs--ZayZayEM 02:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. There is already too much separate articles like Japanese fascism, Militarism-Socialism in Showa Japan, Japanese expansionism and Xenophobia in Showa Japan that should be merged so we should avoid to create another bunch of separate articles. One article is enough. P.S. Besides, I already tagged some of them to be merged... --Flying tiger 03:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll on the title

Let's do a little straw poll on the title (non binding). --Saintjust (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Change to "Eugenics in Japan"

  1. Support --Saintjust (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep the current title, "Eugenics in Showa Japan"

Others

Concretely, please write how to relate to Eugenics. --Azukimonaka 12:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

These relate to understanding social and political movements in the era. They do not relate to Eugenics (except maybe fascism, and perhaps to a lesser degree Xenophobia). These do not relate to Eugenics, but to the "Showa Japan" focus of the article.--ZayZayEM 01:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
But like others have suggested above, the "Showa Japan" focus itself is "silly" to begin with. Showa is only the Japanese name of a period that corresponds to the reign of Emperor Showa and spans from 1926 to 1989. Fascism and the rest all effectively ended by 1945, while eugenics didn't. Also, just because something happened during the militarist rule doesn't necessarily mean it was related to militarism. --Saintjust 08:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
"Fascism and the rest all effectively ended by 1945," - disputed. Or Do you mean state fascism?--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Is this topic included in "Medicine history of Japan"?　Or, is this topic included in "Nationalism of Japan"?　--Azukimonaka 07:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The intent was clear since the start. The article is about eugenism and everything which is directly or indirectly related such as medicine, nationalism, war and militarism. Jennifer Robertson clearly wrote that eugenism, as part of the new scientific order, was introduced in Japan "under the aegis of nationalism and empire building".[[28]]
Is Jennifer Robertson a specialist of the medicine history?
Is "under the aegis of nationalism and empire building" a book for the eugenics of Japan?　(Please answer with Yes/No.)　--Azukimonaka 14:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Why can't it be both? They are not unique classifications. I think this article will have a political and social tone more than anything else.--ZayZayEM 15:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Please decide priority. --Azukimonaka 17:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
No. That would be silly, pointless and limit the article unnecessarily. Article content first, then categories later.--ZayZayEM 14:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

Flying-Tyger wrote. [29] <- First Version　

Eugenics in Shōwa Japan were supported by politically motivated movements that sought to increase the number of healthy Japanese, while simultaneously decreasing the number of people suffering mental retardation , disability, genetic disease and other conditions that led to them being viewed as "inferior" contributions to the Japanese gene pool.(#1"The National Eugenic Law)(#2[30])

The source#1 is being written like this.

"The purposes of this law are to prevent the birth of inferior descendants from the eugenic point of view, and to protect the life and health of the mother as well."

He concealed "and to protect the life and health of the mother as well". and emphasized inferior.

"while simultaneously decreasing the number of people suffering mental retardation , disability, genetic disease and other conditions..." is also wrong. 　
Source #1 is written, Only "hereditary disorder (遺伝性疾患)".
Source #2 is written, "or hereditary malformation, or the spouse suffers from mental disease or mental disability". However, this is an explanation of The Eugenic Protection Law approved in 1948.　

Flying-Tyger, Please explain the reason why you falsified like this. --Azukimonaka 14:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

NB: No source is presented in the original version. No reference is made to the National Eugenic Law. Or to the bioethics.jp text. User:Azukimonaka needs to realise that this article is not merely about the National Eugenic law. --ZayZayEM 15:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Please refer to an original source. It is being written.

　

The purpose of the Eugenic Protection Law is stated in Article 1:

"The purposes of this law are to prevent the birth of inferior descendants from the eugenic point of view, and to protect the life and health of the mother as well."

The Eugenic Protection Law actually serves as a law for eugenic and maternal protection by applying the methods of "eugenic operation" (Article 2) and "artificial interruption of pregnancy" (Article 2-II). In this law the term "eugenic operation" refers to any surgical operation that makes a person unable to reproduce without removing the reproduction glands, as prescribed by Order. "Artificial interruption of pregnancy" refers to the artificial discharge of a fetus and its appendages from the body of the mother during the period when a fetus is unable to remain alive outside the body of the mother. (This particular time period ends around the 22nd or 23rd week of gestation.)

--Azukimonaka 06:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Flying Tyger isn't the one to blame on this. --Saintjust 09:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the two sources cited in the lead section

"Jurisprudence in Genetics" by Rihito Kimura appears to be first added by Stammer in the external links section. [31] Then in the following edit, HongQiGong added a footnote to the lead section that cited this same webpage. [32] The text of the lead section itself was written by neither of them. Nor did Flying Tyger write it. It had been here from long before. Now, this article by Kimura doesn't substantiate very well what the lead section claims, especially regarding racial purity and superiority/inferiority. So HongQiGong's placement of the footnote tag here was a mistake. It should be removed, and this article should be used somewhere else in the article that is more directly relevant, possibly in a section on the Eugenic Protection Law of 1948.

Another source, a text from the Eugenic Protection Law of 1940 ("(国民優生法) 第一条　本法ハ悪質ナル遺伝性疾患ノ素質ヲ有スル者ノ増加ヲ防遏スルト共ニ健全ナル素質ヲ有スル者ノ増加ヲ図リ以テ国民素質ノ向上ヲ期スルコトヲ目的トス") appears to be first added by Azukimonaka himself in the lead section as a footnote [33] This source mentions the "improvement of the quality of the people" (国民素質) by preventing the increase of people who possess the quality of "malignant" genetic disorder (悪質ナル遺伝性疾患ノ素質) and increasing people who possess "healthy" (健全) qualities. Again, no mention of Naziesque purity or superiority/inferiority.

As it is, the lead section is still unsourced. Either it should be revised to conform to what the cited sources actually say, or remove the two sources and find other sources that actually substantiate what it says about racial purity, superiority/inferiority, and the rest. --Saintjust 09:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

what is the difference between "malignant" vs. "healthy" and using inferior vs. superiority? My main issue is that a lot of the traits being listed as "malignant genetic disorders" are neither malignant or genetic. I do not see a problem mentioning that increasing healthy Japanese numbers was Japanese eugenicism's primary objectives.--ZayZayEM 23:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
"Malignant" and "healthy" are simply more precise translations of the original Japanese words used in this particular law. Whether a certain trait was rightly considered malignant and/or genetic back then is another issue. Also, words like "superior," "inferior," and "purity" have an overtone of racial supremacism that makes it sound like its primary aim was to create a Japanese master race. --Saintjust 08:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"The book, Yuseigaku to Ningen Shakai

I'm not quite sure of exactly what is being disputed at User_talk:ZayZayEM#FYI, but the link provided by Azukimonaka [34] is of a website maintained by notable Japanese scholars such as ja:立岩真也 among others, and the page provides a summary of the book "優生学と人間社会−生命科学の世紀はどこへ向かうのか−," which seems to be used in the disputed edit [35]. According to the summary provided by this website, the chapter 5 of the book, "日本−戦後の優生保護法という名の断種法" by Yoko Matsubara (松原洋子), overviews National Eugenic Law (国民優生法, 1940-1947), Eugenic Protection Law (優生保護法, 1948-1996), and other eugenic thoughts and policies in Japan since the establishment of the Ministry of Health and Welfare in 1938 upto the present ("本章では1938年の厚生省創設から国民優生法、優生保護法、そして現在までの日本の優性思想・政策を概観した内容"). --Saintjust 05:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Doctor of eugenics"

This is an innapropriate title for Nagai Hisomu.

It should be in inverted commas, if this was some sort of name he was known as.

Otherwise I would like to have clarification as to whether this is in reference to actual tertairy+ qualifications. Was he an M.D. or Ph.D? What is meant by "of Eugenics"?

rSome possibilities include:

  • Nagai Hisomu, a specialist doctor of eugenics (Note lowercase "d")
  • Nagai Hisomu, who has a Ph.D in Eugenic studies/practices
  • Nagai Hisomu, the "Doctor of Eugenics"

Please help clarify--ZayZayEM 03:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Nagai Hisomu (永井 潜, 1876-1957) graduated from the medical school of the Tokyo Imperial University, studied under Max Verworn at the Georg-August University of Göttingen, and served as a professor of biology at Tokyo Imperial University. [36] He is often refered to as an authority, a major proponent, etc. of eugenics in Japan. --Saintjust 08:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
So inverted commas would be the best way to proceed ね? It's not an actual title, so it shouldn't be used as such. It should also probably be explained when Hisomu is first introduced in the article.
Or perhaps if he is just described as one of the leading proponents or authorities on Eugenics in Japan at the time.--ZayZayEM 08:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The title "Doctor of eugenics" isn't necessary, and should be removed or replaced with "authority" or a similar term. It wouldn't make a good sense in Japanese, either. --Saintjust 08:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Nagai Hisomu was a professor of Physiology.[37][38]　--Azukimonaka 18:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Then call him as such "Nagai Hisomu, a professor of Physiology and leading authority on eugenics in Japan, did/said/pushed for/created/was ..." --ZayZayEM 22:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Leprosy

Leprosy is not an inherited disease, and thus not genetic. Please explain its relevance to eugenics. The only time I see it as relevant is when eugenic legislation is extended to cover lepers as well. Early (1907) Leper isolation and maltreatment is not related to eugenics or eugenic movements. It is a form of quarantine, an unrelated public health science motivated initiative.--ZayZayEM 23:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Forced abortion and sterilization were practiced on leprosy patients because leprosy was considered hereditary (or a similar genetic nature) back then: "Only about a sixth of former Hansen's disease patients surveyed at 15 sanitariums nationwide wish to return to society... due to long periods of segregation, as well as forced sterilization and abortion in order to eradicate what the government considered a "hereditary" disease.... It was only in 1996 that the controversial Eugenic Protection Law of 1948, which allowed abortion and sterilization in cases of hereditary diseases, was revised" (Japan Times, Friday, May 11, 2001, "Former Hansen's disease patients shun return to society, survey shows"). --Saintjust 08:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You are perfectly right. We should try not to think like educated 21th century persons. Even if most scientists 100 years ago knew that leprosy was not inherited, many people believed that the disease was both contagious and inheritable. I remember reading something about a Japanese scientist who tried to help patients by explaining in 1931 that the disease was not inheritable to some fellow scientists who insisted that the body constitution vulnerable to the disease was inheritable. I'll try to check for it. It is not unreasonable to think that some political authorities believed the sickness was inheritable or simply reacted to this fear in the population by "playing safe" and ordering compulsory sterilization. --Flying tiger 13:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a complicated story. To be exact, leprosy was no longer considered hereditary, at least not expressly and strictly so, by most in the medical community back then; nevertheless, forced sterlization and abortion were practiced by some eugenicists on lepers because of a belief "that certain body types are easily infected with Hansen's disease and sterilization would eliminate the heredity of such body types." The Eugenic Law, which in express terms only allowed sterilization on people with a hereditary disorder or disease, was then interpreted in a "twisted" manner to encompass the people of the alleged leprosy-vulnerable "body types" also.

"Verification Committee Concerning Hansen's Disease Problem" (Japan Law Foundation, Verification Committee Concerning Hansen's Disease Problem, (March, 2005): "In March 1940, the second Konoe Fumimaro administration proposed at 75th session of Imperial Parliament a "Citizen Eugenic Law," which stipulated the implementation of sterilization surgery on sick and disabled people if the sickness or handicap was considered hereditary and made other sterilization surgery illegal. Obviously, patients with Hansen's disease would not be covered according to this law. Hence, the administration decided that sterilization of patients with Hansen's disease would be stipulated in a revised version of the "(Former) Leprosy Prevention Law." However, while the "Citizen Eugenic Law" was passed, the revision proposal for the "(Former) Leprosy Prevention Law" was not as incomplete deliberation. After that, however, the sterilization of patients with Hansen's disease continued, with the following argument: the "Citizen Eugenic Law" states that "surgery and radiation treatment that would disable reproduction for no reason shall not be performed," but sterilization of patients with Hansen's disease does not fall under this law since such surgery is NOT "for no reason." The reason that sterilization of patients with Hansen's disease continued despite such a twisted interpretation of the law was, for one, a belief that certain body types are easily infected with Hansen's disease and that sterilization would eliminate the heredity of such body types" (pp. 23-24).

"A. View of Hansen's Disease as Seen in Medical Literature Prior to the Segregation Policy.... the following books were published since the 1880s, revealing the view that understood the onset of Hansen's disease as infection. based on the discovery of the leprosy bacterium by A. Hansen.... However, on the other hand, there were many medical books based on traditional hereditary theory; some of them, while even admitting infection, did not deny the hereditary factor." (p. 16). --Saintjust 14:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

IF there is sufficient evidence (possibly at least somewhat available in Former Hansen's, JT) to show Lepers were sterilised under the misguided notion of disease heritability, then it would fall under Eugenics- but this needs to be explained. Otherwise, like you received at Eugenics mainpage, several people are going to be confused why a communicable disease is being dealt with eugenically.--ZayZayEM 01:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the law that Japanese Government enforced...

  • Leprosy Prevention Laws never compelled sterilization.
  • Compulsory sterilization of Leprosy is after 1948.

Timeline

    • 1907, Leprosy Prevention Laws (癩予防ニ関スル件) purpose was to isolate wandering Leprosy patients. (癩患者ニシテ療養ノ途ヲ有セス且救護者ナキモノハ行政官癩ニ於テ命令ノ定ムル所ニ従ヒ療養所ニ入ラシメ之ヲ救護スベシ)
    • 1931, To isolate all Leprosy patients, Leprosy Prevention Laws　(癩予防法) was approved.[39] (行政官癩ハ癩予防上必要ト認ムル トキハ命令ノ定ムル所ニ従ヒ癩患者ニシテ病毒傅播ノ虞アルモノヲ国立癩療養所又ハ第4条ノ 規定ニ依リ設置スル療養所ニ入所セシムルベシ)
    • 1940, The Diet passes The National Eugenic Law(国民優性法). The patient was not sterilized because Leprosy had been thought to be an epidemic. (This law is a law to remove an inferior inheritance. )
    • 1948, Leprosy and Haemophilia were compulsorily sterilized by Eugenic Protection Law. [40]
    • 1953, Leprosy Prevention Laws (らい予防法) was approved. [41]　The patient was compulsorily isolated.

Why are you confused?　　--Azukimonaka 14:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Is Leprosy necessary?

Is Leprosy a necessary topic for Eugenics in Showa Japan?　--Azukimonaka 14:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If leprosy was treated as a genetic/inherited disease by certain eugenic measures, then yes. But only in these conditions.--ZayZayEM 01:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The Leprosy Prevention laws of 1907[42], 1931[43] and 1953[44], are policies of isolating the Leprosy patient. Sterilization doesn't relate at all.
Leprosy became one of the sterilized genes by Eugenic Protection Law in 1948.[45]
Therefore, Leprosy is unnecessary in "Eugenics in Showa Japan". --Azukimonaka 13:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
The Showa period lasted between 1926 and 1989. --Saintjust 14:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. However, Flying Tiger defines Showa as the age of Japanese expansionism(1926-1945). The Flying tiger doesn't explain this contradiction. Therefore, I am embarrassed. --Azukimonaka 12:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
"In Showa" shouldn't be in the title in the first place. See #The title and the scope of the article on this page. --Saintjust (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Will this confused user stop interpreting what other users think ? I NEVER wrote that, quite the contrary... [[46]] Will there be someday a mediator here ?....--Flying tiger 13:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Because Flying-Tyger was not able to object, this part is deleted.

The Leprosy Prevention laws of 1907, 1931 and 1953, the last one only repealed in 1996, permitted the segregation of patients in sanitarium where forced abortions and sterilization were common and authorized punishmement of patients "disturbing peace".

Deletion reason
1.Sterilization is untried because of Leprosy Prevention laws.
2.The purpose of Leprosy Prevention laws is prevention of the epidemic.
Please write the rebuttal if there is a rebuttal. --Azukimonaka (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Leprosy is deleted within November

Leprosy is deleted because there is no rebuttal. Please write if there is evidence of the rebuttal. --Azukimonaka (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just state what descriptions you want to be included in the article, what descriptions you don't want to be included, and reasons thereof. 相手の主張の矛盾とか、そういうことはいいですから、そちら側として当該記事に記載したい内容と、記載したくない内容、およびその根拠を簡潔に書いて、それを議論してください。--Saintjust (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I experience mediation for the first time. Therefore, I have not understood how to execute mediation. すいません。mediationの経験が初めてなので、どのように進めたらよいのかがわかりませんでした。

Profitable information and needless information

Useful information

  • 1926, Eugenics introduced to Japan by Ikeda Ringi (池田 林儀), a journalist who had been sent to Germany. Ringi starts the magazine "Eugenics movement"
  • 1930,　Society of Health and Human Ecology (JSHHE) established. The "Doctor of Eugenics", Nagi Hisomu, assumes the position of the chief director of this organization.
  • 1934-1938, The Eugenic Protection Law submitted, and rejected, to the Diet every year during this period
  • 1938, The Japanese government establishes the Ministry of Health and Welfare
  • 1940, The Diet passes The National Eugenic Law. (国民優生法)
  • 1940-1945 Sterilization performed on 454 patients by the Japanese empire.
  • 1948, The Diet passes The Eugenic Protection Law (優生保護法)
  • 1996, Mother's Body Protection Law (母体保護法) approved June 18, abolishing/superceding the Eugenic Protection Law

Information that should be deleted

  • Eugenics in Shōwa Japan were supported by politically motivated movements that sought to increase the number of healthy Japanese, while simultaneously decreasing the number of people suffering mental retardation , disability, genetic disease and other conditions that led to them being viewed as "inferior" contributions to the Japanese gene pool.(#1"The National Eugenic Law)(#2[47]

Deletion reason
1. POV
2. Information is wrong

  • and to protect the life and health of the mother as well was deleted from the source. ("The purposes of this law are to prevent the birth of inferior descendants from the eugenic point of view, and to protect the life and health of the mother as well.")
  • "while simultaneously decreasing the number of people suffering mental retardation , disability, genetic disease and other conditions..." is also wrong. "The National Eugenic Law" that Nazis Germany influences excluded only genetic disease. [48]
  • The Leprosy Prevention laws of 1907, 1931 and 1953, the last one only repealed in 1996, permitted the segregation of patients in sanitarium where forced abortions and sterilization were common and authorized punishmement of patients "disturbing peace".
Deletion reason - Information is wrong
1.Leprosy Prevention laws is not related to Sterilization.
2.The purpose of Leprosy Prevention laws is prevention of the epidemic.
    • 1907, Leprosy Prevention Laws (癩予防ニ関スル件) purpose was to isolate wandering Leprosy patients. (癩患者ニシテ療養ノ途ヲ有セス且救護者ナキモノハ行政官癩ニ於テ命令ノ定ムル所ニ従ヒ療養所ニ入ラシメ之ヲ救護スベシ)
    • 1931, To isolate all Leprosy patients, Leprosy Prevention Laws　(癩予防法) was approved.[49] (行政官癩ハ癩予防上必要ト認ムル トキハ命令ノ定ムル所ニ従ヒ癩患者ニシテ病毒傅播ノ虞アルモノヲ国立癩療養所又ハ第4条ノ 規定ニ依リ設置スル療養所ニ入所セシムルベシ)
    • 1940, The Diet passes The National Eugenic Law(国民優性法). The patient was not sterilized because Leprosy had been thought to be an epidemic. (This law is a law to remove an inferior inheritance. )
    • 1948, Leprosy and Haemophilia were compulsorily sterilized by Eugenic Protection Law. [50]
    • 1953, Leprosy Prevention Laws (らい予防法) was approved. [51]　The patient was compulsorily isolated.
  • 1910, Under the colonial Korean Leprosy prevention ordinance, Korean patients are subjected to hard labor.
Deletion reason - This is not Eugenics.
  • 1942, Marriage between Koreans and Japanese is discouraged. A survey report argues that "the Korean laborers brought to Japan, where they have established permanent residency, are of the lower classes and therefore of inferior constitution...By fathering children with Japanese women, these men could lower the caliber of the Yamato minzoku"
Deletion reason - This is not Eugenics.
  • On 19 August, 1945, the Home Ministry ordered local government offices to establish a prostitution service for allied soldiers to preserve the "purity" of the "Japanese race". The official declaration stated that : «Through the sacrifice of thousands of "Okichis" of the Shōwa era, we shall construct a dike to hold back the mad frenzy of the occupation troops and cultivate and preserve the purity of our race long into the future...»
Deletion reason - Information is wrong
This description is not corresponding to the order August 19, 1945 at all.

外国軍駐屯地における慰安施設の設置に関する内務省警保局長通牒(無電)[原文漢数字]
1945/08/18
外国軍駐屯地に於ては別記要領に依り之が慰安施設等設備の要あるも本件取扱に付ては極めて慎重を要するに付特に左記事項留意の上遺憾なきを期せられ度.
1.外国軍の駐屯地及時季は目下全く予想し得ざるところなれば必ず貴県に駐屯するが如き感を懐き一般に動揺を来さしむ如きなかるべきこと.
2.駐屯する場合は急速に開設を要するものなるに付内部的には予め手筈を定め置くこととし外部には絶対に之を漏洩せざること.
3.本件実施に当りて日本人の保護を趣旨とするものなることを理解せしめ地方民をして誤解を生じせしめざること.

(別記)
外国駐屯軍慰安施設等整備要綱
1. 営業行為は一定の区域を限定して従来の取締標準にかかわらずこれを許可するものとす.
2. 前項の区域は警察署長に於いて之を設定するものとし,日本人の施設利用は之を禁ずるものとす.
3. 警察署長は左の営業については積極的に指導を行い設備の急速充実を図るものとする.
性的慰安施設
飲食施設
娯楽場
4. 営業に必要な婦女子は,芸妓,公私娼妓,女給,酌婦,常習密売淫犯者を優先的に之を充足するものとする.

吉川春子『従軍慰安婦 新資料による国会論戦』あゆみ出版1997/11/01 pp.230

　--Azukimonaka (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  1. The current lead section is completely unsourced and needs to be rewritten like you say. See #Regarding the two sources cited in the lead section.
  2. The leprosy prevention laws are irrelevant and should not be included in this article. However, the issue of the treatment of leprosy under the National Eugenic Law is legitimate one and should be included. See #Leprosy.
  3. The 1910 Korean Leprosy prevention ordinance should be removed for the same reason as the leprosy prevention laws.
  4. Marriage between Koreans and Japanese was discouraged by Eugenic marriage counseling centers. So this fact does merit reference. However, it should also be mentioned that it did not represent the policy of the entire Imperial Japan, and, intermarriage was rather encouraged by the Government-General of Korea under Nissen doso-ron (日鮮同祖論). See Eugenics in Showa Japan#Eugenics and Japanese expansionism.
  5. The 1945 Ordinance needs further examination. Firstly, the context of the quote from Bix's Hirohito isn't very clear. Someone needs to confirm if this is rightly quoted and used in the edit at issue as well as the primary source of it. Either way, Yoshikawa's contrary interpretation of the ordinance also should be mentioned. --Saintjust (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging of Japanese expansionism

The article Japanese expansionism should be merged into the Empire of Japan article or some other long established article on wartime Japan, together with other garbage articles on Japanese militarism, fascism, nationalism, imperialism, etc. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan/Archive/November 2007#Merge all the wartime Japanese this and that articles into one for god's sake for details. --Saintjust (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a better candidate for merging would be the strangely titled Japanese nationalist thinking in the Meiji era. The two could be be called for example Expansionism in Imperial Japan. Overall, there is a lot of work to do in the content of all these separate articles often written in bad english and generally without sources Grant65 and I began some cleaning weeks ago but it looks they are in countless number.... --Flying tiger (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Japanese expansionism, together with Japanese Imperialism, has no substantial content that is not covered in the Empire of Japan article and other articles on Japan-related history events of the era. "Expansionism" was just a foreign policy of the Empire of Japan. Things that the Empire of Japan did are all naturally written in the Empire of Japan article. Unless there is an independent article on the foreign policy of the Empire of Japan, the Empire of Japan article suffices.
If one wants to write about the ideology that supported the expansionist policy, then there are articles on Japanese militarism, fascism, nationalism, etc. that supported the entire regime of the Imperial Japan. (These articles also need to be merged partially or entirely as they overlap very much with one another.)
Japanese nationalist thinking in the Meiji era should be merged into Japanese nationalism. It's just another crap original research essay that should have been deleted long ago. --Saintjust (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ 民族衛生(1946) Nagai Hisomu "敗因は科学の精神の閑却　民族衛生学の役割は重要　資質優れたものを前線に送りだしのに反して　劣弱なる素質者は，悠々結婚して，子供を産み得る点に於て，由々敷逆淘汰であり…"
  2. ^ 「優生問題を考える（四）──国民優生法と優生保護法 Matsubara Yoko - Research of Eugenics problem (Professor of Ritsumeikan University, researcher of Gender-blind and Eugenics.)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Eugenics_in_Showa_Japan/Archive_1&oldid=173183430"