Talk:Gaijin/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Reliable Sources and Questionable Sources: The Racial Slur Database, Roadjunky.com, and two personal homepages

Since there seems to be some disagreement on what constitutes a reliable third-party source, I thought it would be a good idea to paste the relevant Wikipedia policies (not guidelines) to this page for further reference.

Taken from Wikipedia: Verifiability (Sources) (see WP:V)

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight.

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Given the above policies, I'm wondering how The Racial Slur Database, Roadjunky.com, and two personal homepages justify as legitimate the contentious edit: "[gaijin] is considered a racial slur by many." I welcome an open discussion on this issue. Thoughts? J Readings 21:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Notice Let me remind some of you about WP:3RR. Rather than edit war, please discuss the issues here first and try to come to an agreement. If no agreement can be made, then I suggest pursuing further steps at WP:DR. If necessary, the page can be protected from further edits until the issues are resolved. Edit warring is not the solution. As a default, the page should be reverted to the last non-contentious edit. Bendono 02:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bendono. I really don't want to get into an edit war over this issue, and I refuse to revert again. Instead, I strongly encourage Expatlecturer to be familiar with Wikipedia policies and to try to engage with us on how and why these sources are supposedly reliable (I've already approached the editor on his/her talk page, but I have not received a reply yet). Without a clear policy-guided answer, there are always other dispute resolutions to explore including the temporary protection of the page from further editing and its reversion to a non-contentious edit.J Readings 02:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree also with Bendono, and have reverted Expatlecturer’s edit is the hope that this will put the article back to its recently stable version while giving Expatlecturer time to review Wikipedia policies (including what “POV” means here) and past discussions on this page. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 03:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Notice: In addition to the four editors here who strongly disagree that The Racial Slur Database, Roadjunky.com, and two personal homepages should be used as reliable sources per WP:RS, I consulted with Reliable sources/noticeboard. Three outside editors also agree that these sources are not acceptable for the claims made. FWIW, J Readings 03:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm wading into this discussion a little late and so I apologize if this has already been mentioned. But I was wondering why it isn't possible to just say that "some people find it offensive", or similar. I live in Japan (10 years in), and yes I find it offensive. Not in every context, but in some contexts it can be offensive. In any event, society's current yardstick by which to judge whether a term is offensive as racial epithet is NOT, by looking at the speakers intent, but by looking at the way it causes the target to feel. I used the term "Jap" a lot when I took notes in classes or meeting as an abbreviation of "Japan" or "Japanese". It was merely my shorthand notetaking style, but was told by coworkers that I couldn't use it because it was offensive. I reflected on this and came to the conclusion, that although I intended no offense, it could be offensive to some so I stopped using it.

So why can't we just say that it is considered to be offensive by some people. Take a poll, perhaps. How say you? 222.147.183.95 06:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I've read all the archived material so I can see what's been happening. Or rather, what hasn’t been happening. Laughable really. The controversy section needs to get put back in to the main article because it is the reality, regardless of how much this confuses, confounds or annoys some of you. To leave it out, on the basis that “more research needs to be done” or the like is simply disengenuous.

Lots of back slapping has been going on too about the etymological research. I’m not saying that that research isn’t useful, it most certainly is and it has a place in the article, but it will not help you to work out whether the term is currently offensive. Consulting with Japanese scholars or authorities will also not help you. I’ve heard Japanese people claim that ニッガ　when said to a black person is not offensive because Japan doesn’t have a history racism against blacks. (I am not equating "gaijin" with "nigga", but merely illustrating how misguided it is to use the speaker's opinion to decide whether a word is offensive)

Those of you who think that there just isn’t enough reliable evidence yet to include the controversy issue, do not, with all due respect, get out much. Anyone vaguely interested in the issue knows that there is controvery about the word. So why can’t the fact that controvery exists be included in the article?

It is blindingly obvious that there is an agenda at work here by people who skilfully use the rules of WP to their advantage.

About me? Yes, I have (among other degrees) a linguistics degree (with honours). But its hardly a necessary requirement in order to understand this simple issue. As I stated earlier – you cannot judge whether a word is offensive or not by asking the speaker whether they consider it offensive. This should be clear. 222.147.182.144 02:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• It is blindingly obvious that there is an agenda at work here by people who skilfully use the rules of WP to their advantage. Harsh words. What's the agenda?
• Etymological research will not help you to work out whether the term is currently offensive. I'd tend to agree.
• Consulting with Japanese scholars or authorities will also not help you. I’ve heard Japanese people claim that ニッガ　when said to a black person is not offensive because Japan doesn’t have a history [of] racism against blacks. The latter claim is very strange, but note the difference between (a) scholars or authorities and (b) people in general.
• [I'm] merely illustrating how misguided it is to use the speaker's opinion to decide whether a word is offensive: I don't see how this is misguided, though of course sole dependence on it is misguided.
• Anyone vaguely interested in the issue knows that there is controvery about the word. So why can’t the fact that controvery exists be included in the article? It's not a matter of getting out much; it could be one of citing reliable sources. On the other hand, you may have a valid point: while verifiable occurrences of an assertion aren't enough to show that the assertion is valid, they may be enough to show that the assertion is made. (I haven't investigated either the sources cited or the way that they were cited.)
• I have (among other degrees) a linguistics degree (with honours). But its hardly a necessary requirement in order to understand this simple issue. I'd say it's pretty much irrelevant. Derogatory language is a minor or peripheral aspect of sociolinguistics, which is just one area of linguistics (and arguably a peripheral one).
• I live in Japan (10 years in), and yes I find [gaijin] offensive. Not in every context, but in some contexts it can be offensive. This of course is mere anecdotal evidence, but you're free to bring it up in the talk page; and now that you've brought it up we're free to discuss it. You appear to have learned Japanese as an L2. This suggests that you may have consciously learned that gaijin is offensive. This in turn doesn't imply that the term isn't offensive, but it's interesting all the same: From where/whom did you learn that the term was offensive? And in those contexts where (for whatever reason) you do find it offensive, do you find it more offensive than gaikokujin or any other obvious alternative? -- Hoary 04:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

---

· The latter claim is very strange, but note the difference between (a) scholars or authorities and (b) people in general.

- Noted. But I don’t think it effects anything I have said. I don’t believe we need to look to Japanese nationals for the answer of whether foreigners feel like the term is insulting or not. Do you? Or do you believe foreigners feelings about the word are irrelevant?

· I don't see how this is misguided, though of course sole dependence on it is misguided.

- I think its pretty worthless myself for the purposes of this particular issue (see last above).

· It's not a matter of getting out much; it could be one of citing reliable sources.

Yes, the sources issue. A big red herring. I am incredulous that this has become a sticking point. Seriously, guys, are you having trouble believing that some people are offended by the word (leave the question of whether or not it is offensive out of it)? Cross my heart and hope to die, I tell you some people are offended by it, and I'm sure you know it. The controversy exists. But by turing it into a “sources” issue, it has become something that is very difficult to substantiate to your satisfaction. But consider this, can you find a peer-reviewed source that tells you not to eat the yellow snow because an animal peed on it? Is it worth substantiating this with sources?

· On the other hand, you may have a valid point: while verifiable occurrences of an assertion aren't enough to show that the assertion is valid, they may be enough to show that the assertion is made. (I haven't investigated either the sources cited or the way that they were cited.)

-This is precisely my point. Whether or not the positions for or against have any merit, the controversy itself exists. By omiting that fact from the article, you are witholding factual information.

· I'd say it's pretty much irrelevant. Derogatory language is a minor or peripheral aspect of sociolinguistics, which is just one area of linguistics (and arguably a peripheral one).

- Agreed.

· You appear to have learned Japanese as an L2.

-Yes, L2.

· This suggests that you may have consciously learned that gaijin is offensive.

Does it really suggest that or is that just wild speculation? No, I don’t remember anyone telling me it was offensive. In fact, I remember the opposite – people telling me it was not offensive. I think I learned that it could be offensive, depending on context, just through my day to day living in Japan. Yes, more offensive that gaikokujin, usually. To me it’s a little bit like the word “Jew”. A perfectly fine word in most cases, depending on use. But use it as a verb, or use it as a way to address someone (Hi Mr. Jew!") and it’s insulting. Now before anyone hauls me over the coals for this analogy, don’t forget I said “a little bit like”. The analogy is not perfect of course, just a tool to help me illustrate my position. 222.147.182.144 06:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What chunk of text do you want inserted or reinstated? You could stick it either immediately below or (perhaps better) at the foot of this page. If it was in the article but is now gone, you'll find it via the "history" of the article. -- Hoary 06:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Ureshii!! How about the first paragraph from Explodingboys' rather lengthy but good explanation, as follows...?

"The use of the word gaijin is often a source of controversy. While the term is not necessarily pejorative, its use can be considered offensive in some circumstances, in part because it is a contraction (and thus less polite than other terms), and in part because of mixed perceptions of its specific meaning." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.147.182.144 (talk)

I think that we would need to remove the first sentence which seems to be a string of weasel words and synthesis of original research (What controversy? Where was it "often" reported? If it's so "controversial," obviously it would have received a lot of third-party attention from academics, journalists, and politicians (both in English and Japanese). I can't find any evidence yet that this is the case. What we can do--and I think that this is both fair and within policy--is to report concisely on the various authors who offered opinions on the nature of the word in reliably sourced publications. One or two sentences for each reliably sourced author is more than sufficient for an encyclopedia article, I think. I also agree with Hoary that a serious study on the word would have its place here, too. Otherwise, by adding the above unsourced generalizations, we're just starting the same cycle anew by adding unsourced contentious edits that will be followed by more unsourced contentious edits, making the article a lengthy, unreliable and unstable mess. It would be unfortunate if that started up again. J Readings 21:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. Even in Japan, most academics, journalists and politicians have more pressing directions in which to cast their attention than putatively offensive words. It doesn't need "a lot" of such attention. Moreover, to give one or two sentences for each seems a bit over the top, unless of course each says something particularly perceptive and yet soundbitable.

As I've said elsewhere on this page, I have a distinct memory of having read some groveling (and, to me, unintentionally funny) apology by the earnest periodical Shūkan Kin'yōbi for having previously used this dread word. That would count -- not as evidence for the word's offensiveness but as evidence for a certain belief in its offensiveness. But I've no idea which issue it was. this search leads to for example 無意識の差別について | 人権問題を考える | dentsu online; conspiracy theorists will be thrilled to find that the page no longer exists, but Google has preserved it for us here. Perhaps there's plenty more of this stuff, for those who are interested. -- Hoary 03:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Well, actually I agree that if the author was just echoing what another author said it wouldn't make much sense to repeat the same thing over and over again. Maybe listing the author's name and the citation would make more sense, that's something for us to consider. As for the question of synthesis, I'm not sure what we can do about this without it becoming a unsourced POV nightmare. We can certainly say, I think, that Shūkan Kin'yōbi editors (or the publication) consider the word to be offensive (if there's publicly verifiable evidence), but as I mentioned elsewhere there are several publications that continue to use the word as a simple synonym for "foreigner" or "foreign national." It's tricky business, this editing. J Readings 03:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

“Weasel words” – from WP - “A weasel word is a word that is intended to, or has the effect of, softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement.”

So “weasel words” apply where there is a potentially loaded or controversial statement. Not in the present case because I assume that you agree that some people find the word “gaijin” offensive. If you do not agree that some people find the word gaijin offensive, please state so now, so we know where you stand and we will be one step closer to resolving this issue. 60.40.52.1 03:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can check with the admins on this issue of definitions, but my understanding is that ["controversial"] is defined in Wikipedia as "where its related articles are constantly being re-edited in a circular manner, or is otherwise the focus of edit warring." Unfortunately, this was the case for this article. Personally, as I mentioned to User:Expatlecturer on his talk page, I'm not a big fan of the word. But my personal beliefs are irrelevant for the purpose of this article. Serious articles require serious sources so that we can both comply with and work within some form of editing structure. J Readings 04:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"The word gaijin (”outsider”) is not necessarily regarded as a disparaging term by the many ethnic majority Japanese who use it, often in reference to Japanese minorities as well as foreigners; many people so labelled, however, find the term exclusionary and thus offensive.” (Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan 1983/2: 314).60.40.52.1 04:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you for this. Now we just need to check whether we're allowed to cite an encyclopedia in another encyclopedia. I would LOVE to be done with this issue, and move on to other issues on the page. J Readings 04:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Personally, as I mentioned to User:Expatlecturer on his talk page, I'm not a big fan of the word."

- But that does not answer the question I asked. I simply want to know whether you disagree with the statement that "some people find the term offensive". This is important because it would seem, from the amount of consternation going on here, that some people DO disagree with this statement. I would merely like such people to raise their hands and identify themselves (because I don't think they exist - it's not a point of controversy, but is a fact that exists at the perimeter of a controversial topic).

Let me also quickly clarify something because I agree that there's some misunderstandings here. I referred to the words "often" and "controversy" as being problematic in no small part because they're unreferenced over-generalizations that invite other editors to come in and start trying to either counter the comment with they're own POV unsourced statements, novel theories, and ideas or add to them. If you check the archives and the edit history in the early days, this is exactly what happened. J Readings 05:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, well, let's tighten up the language a little:

"While the term 'gaijin' is not necessarily pejorative, its use can be considered by some people to be offensive in some circumstances." I think that's all we need. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.40.52.1 (talk) 06:09, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

"Now we just need to check whether we're allowed to cite an encyclopedia in another encyclopedia."

- To which WP says: "Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias that sum up other secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources. (Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source.) Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in Encyclopaedia Britannica and encyclopedias of similar quality can be regarded as reliable secondary sources instead of tertiary ones. Unsigned articles may be less reliable, but they may be used so long as the encyclopedia is a high quality one." Looks like its good to me 60.40.52.1 04:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed. Thanks. Would you happen to know who wrote that encyclopedia article? What's the byline? I just want to make sure there won't be a problem when I check with the noticeboard. J Readings 04:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don:t know who wrote the encyclopedia article, or the byline, or who designed the cover jacket of the tome. But none of that should be a problem. Just take it to them and see what they say. I would be astounded if it was rejected because no byline was cited. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.40.52.1 (talk) 05:45, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Any movement yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.43.35.146 (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing? This editing business must be much more complicated that I originally thought. 222.147.183.134 03:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There probably is. There's much more to it than I originally anticipated, too; but that's one of the things I really like about it: It’s a really challenging task—not to be taken lightly—that entails a lot of self-study. And articles with serious contributors seem to get better and better over time, making participation in (collaboration on) them a great learning experience as well. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 02:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Two months later, no changes yet. Fortunately I have the patience of a monk ;-) ....˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.40.50.190 (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Internet Polls as Reliable Source

I also read in the archives that on-line polls (such as the one below) were considered by some here to be non-useful sources. In fact, the WP guide, in it's useful/questionable sources guidelines, doesn't seem to say anything on this matter. Further, it specifically states that these are guidelines, not policies (think Pirates' of the Carribean type 'guidelines'). So what do you guys think of this on-line poll. Reliable, or claptrap?

Online poll Do you think that the Japanese word “gaijin” is offensive?

Yes - 49.8% (903 votes) No - 34.6% (628 votes) Don’t know - 15.6% (282 votes)

http://www.japantoday.com/jp/vote/164 60.40.52.1 05:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

How many times were people specifically allowed to vote? Do we know that it was impossible for multiple IP users, known as "sockpuppets," to manipulate the poll for their own purposes? If so, how is that verified? I suspect that this is one of the reasons why internet polls sometimes raise an eyebrow and aren't used in any academic publications that I've read (as far as I can remember). J Readings 06:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

These are all valid citicisms I guess. 60.40.52.1 11:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Our beating a dead horse department pipes up to point out that any poll would also be biased toward the readership of japantoday.com, a site whose "picture of the day" is captioned Actress Yukie Nakama, 27, holds a new "Nano care" hair dryer by National at a press conference on Tuesday. Along with the hair dryer, National will market an ion face steamer and dryer starting in September. (Stirring stuff!) -- Hoary 11:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Michio Kitahara, Susan Hanley, and Samuel Jared Taylor

On the editor's talk page, Expatlecturer suggested that I visit the library in order to read two specific journal articles by Michio Kitahara and Susan Hanley in order to understand, apparently, why the editor believes that “[gaijin] is considered to be a racial slur by many to whom the word is applied.” Those are indeed reliable third-party sources per WP:RS and would certainly merit a read. Sure enough, I was able to track down the second one, but not the first (I did one better by finding Kitahara’s book on the subject and not just her article.) And in fairness to Expatlecturer, both author’s do briefly use the word gaijin, but ironically neither demonstrate or support what the editor thinks they're saying.

First, Kitahara is a Japanese psychiatrist or psychologist (it’s unclear) whose book, Children of the Sun: the Japanese and the Outside World, apparently expands upon her original essay. She’s not a linguist, a lexicographer, or a Japanese literature scholar but she does claim that she speaks for all Japanese as a Psychiatrist. She only mentions the word gaijin a few times in the entire book: once in the main text, and twice in the glossary. Kitahara writes (my emphasis in bold):

“The two methods used to deal with the problem of racial difference are reflected in the language spoken in contemporary Japan. There are many common expressions which suggest the desirability of Caucasian features.

“I should add that when these expressions are used among the Japanese, even when there are no explicit implications in racial terms, Caucasian standards are meant in most cases. For example, gaijin literally means a “person from outside,” namely a foreigner, and that means “Caucasian.” To describe a Japanese in this manner is a compliment to him or her. To be “similar to a foreigner” (gaijin-no youna) means to be similar to a westerner, and this too, is a compliment. When such expressions are used to describe facial features, the implication is that the face is similar to a western face, and this is also a compliment.”

Susan Hanley’s is a review essay of 5 books, one being the personal memoir and reflections of author, businessman and long-time Japan resident Samuel Jared Taylor. Since Hanley is clearly reviewing Jared Taylor, and she makes no judgment of the word gaijin, it makes sense to go directly to the source. On the word gaijin, Jared Taylor writes on page 37 (my emphasis in bold):

“Language often offers insights into how the Japanese view the world. In Japanese there are at least ten different words that mean ‘foreigner,’ and all of them are pejorative…the least offensive and most commonly used is the familiar ‘gaijin,’ which means ‘outsider.’ Non-Japanese accept the word as a more or less neutral expression.”

The bottom-line is that I don’t understand why anyone would think that these two sources (three if you include Susan Hanley) support the assertion that “[gaijin] is considered to be a racial slur by many to whom the word is applied.” In fact, these two authors seem to be saying the exact opposite. In the case of Kitahara, it's not a slur at all. In the case of Jared Taylor (who uses the word throughout his book, by the way, as a synonym for "foreigner") it might be pejorative, but it's not that bad and non-Japanese certainly don't think it's a racial slur.

My opinion? Include both of these authors in the Usage section while being faithful to Wikipedia's policy of Undue Weight (see WP:UNDUE). One or two lines each should be sufficient for each author, and we can certainly include one line on Gottlieb on Arudou's opinion and all of the other authors previously reviewed (see archives) who don't think the word is derogatory while we're at it. That's my 2p. J Readings 09:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks for the research and the two very useful pence... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the scrupulous work, J Readings.

I'm struck by the way that Kitahara simply asserts that gaijin has positive connotations, without giving evidence. (Or so I perhaps wrongly infer from what you write.) It doesn't seem to me that what she's saying is of any value. (No surprise there, given that it's "a psychoanalytical interpretation".) But any value it might have isn't in showing how the term is pejorative. I'd never heard of "author, businessman and long-time Japan resident Samuel Jared Taylor", who again appears to be making unsupported assertions. (Uh-oh: WP tells us that this book argues the distinctiveness of the Japanese as a race as well as a culture. Yawn.) The editors of Shūkan Kin'yōbi may be surprised to read that gaijin is less offensive than gaikokujin no kata: I remember looking at and chuckling over a groveling editorial apology within one issue of that magazine for the accidental use one or two issues previously of the simple gaijin when gaikokujin no kata was called for. (I'm not offended but I am amused by the prolixity of the latter.) -- Hoary 07:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm glad that I could help out. I didn't think to check WP for an article on either author, but Jared Taylor's article makes me cringe. This guy's bio sounds a little, well, you know. I don't need to say it. In any case, I agree with you Hoary. Researching this word has produced a mountain of opinions from authors, journalists, etc. many of which I haven't written up and posted yet (I want to have a life!) You would think that it would have occurred to someone by now to conduct a professional nationwide survey (not internet poll), or a real empirical analysis in its contemporary usage with various tests, etc. if they were looking to "prove" conclusively that when the Japanese use it, it's somehow indicative of something meaningful. Instead, what we get is a lot of political noise and bar-room like chatter--on the internet, in the print media, and hey --- let's not forget that magnum opus, The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift. It's tiresome, really. J Readings 09:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I just want to comment that it's interesting how different people can read the same quote and get a completely different message from the quote.

I also want to comment on my own view of these citations.

1. Kitahara To describe a Japanese in this manner is a compliment to him or her. To be “similar to a foreigner” (gaijin-no youna) means to be similar to a westerner, and this too, is a compliment.

This quote has little use in our discussion because its about Japanese people calling other Japanese people "gaijin-no youna", NOT gaijin. Different words/phrases. Just like the phrase gaijin-kusai has been discounted in these discussions as not relevant, so too is this phrase.

I think we can all agree that she's using a very specific phrase, and not the simple term gaijin, so her input is of extremely limited value. But I also want to say that she's only using the term here to talk about visible physical characteristics. I wonder if she's ever said to another Japanese, "Hey, you smell like a gaijin", "you think like a gaijin", "you write like a gaijin", "you talk like a gaijin". I doubt it very much, unless she was clueless, or trying to snub someone.

2. Taylor In Japanese there are at least ten different words that mean ‘foreigner,’ and all of them are pejorative… the least offensive and most commonly used is the familiar ‘gaijin,’ which means ‘outsider.’ Non-Japanese accept the word as a more or less neutral expression.

Well, Let's put aside the fact that he seems to speak for all non-Japanese. He's just contradicted himself by saying - "all of them are (considered) pejorative", then later he states that one of them is considered "more or less neutral". ? To be more precise, he's saying that Japanese people think "gaijin" is pejorative. But non-Japanese accept it as neutral. It seems to me this citation could be used as support for either side of the debate, but you know what? I think it best serves as a condemnation of its own value as a reliable and quotable source. 122.27.250.213 (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

"Hanbun" is also a generally accepted term. Unfortunately, no one has been able to provide a reliable source to this sentence since December 2006. I'm placing it on the talk page until one of us can find something appropriate to cite.

I'm also placing the latest edit by the anon IP user that reads: ...within some in the community.However this also has a negative connotation as some foreigners see it as a reference to "a half Breed." J Readings 05:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

William Wetherall

A single-purpose anon IP user wanted to know if Wikipedia can cite the following sentence from the 1983 Encyclopedia of Japan. [1]. The only minor concern I have with this quote is the issue of weasel words like “many” popping up to implicitly endorse some kind of faulty logic on the main page, so I asked if the user knew who the author was. His reply wasn’t too helpful, [2]so I looked up the source myself.

The article is entitled “foreigners in Japan” by William Wetherall (Volume 2, 1st ed., 1983, p. 314). It doesn’t cite any sources for the article and limits itself to a quick sentence or two on the word itself. The only thing that I could find that Wetherall apparently published related to the subject is a report on foreigners in Japan for a partisan think tank entitled “Minority Rights Group" (Report No. 3, new 1983 edition) That source gives Wetherall’s bio. It reads: “William Wetherall is a graduate student in Asian Studies at the University of California Berkeley. His Japanese research covered popular culture, modern literature, contemporary cinema, and minority discrimination.”

I asked what non-involved editors and admins thought. So far, no one seems to have a problem with citing Wetherall’s comment in the Usage section. I don’t either, by the way. In fact, I think it would make a nice balance to the other authors who commented on the word, thus maintaining NPOV. If anyone objects to including Wetherall’s statement, please feel free to make yourself heard before we start re-adding citations. Otherwise, I think we can safely assume that this reputable comment can be added to the list of other authors we can include in that section (probably even putting it at the top of the list). In terms of style, I think that would flow well, actually. J Readings 23:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on all points. Stick it in! :) Jim_Lockhart 14:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the “Single Purpose Account” was a reference to me. Sorry if it appears that way, as I usually try to remember to include the 4 tildes after my posts, although that doesn’t always seem to work like it should (maybe due to trouble with my J-language computer fonts?). I have edited a handful of Wikipedia articles – some on video games, some on legal theory and some on my Japanese interests. I don’t see myself as on a mission to prove any point in particular, just that I have a few areas on interest where I am confident of my knowledge and feel that I can bring something to an article, or in some cases correct obvious mistakes (if you want to see some areas where I have done that in non-J related articles please feel free to ask). None of my edits have been questioned or modified (to my knowledge) other than the Japanese ones (this one on the term “gaijin” and anther series of edits on what was formerly the “zainichi” article. I feel I have experienced a lot about these issues that the “book smart” scholars, or casual observers, might not have. Anyway, thanks for considering my input, I hope something happens with it in the end. ̃̃̃̃ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.199.77.203 (talk) 02:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Edwin O. Reischauer and Endymion Wilkinson

I just got back from vacation about an hour ago (lots of jet lag). I stumbled across two quotes on the word gaijin while on vacation. Thought I would jot them down and add them to the list of reliable citations for the talk page. When I'm awake, I'll start adding these cross-referenced citations to the main page assuming there are no objections.

"All Occidentals in Japan were assumed to be Americans, unless there was clear proof to the contrary, and children quite simply called all of them Americans, rather than 'gaijin,' or 'foreigners,' the usual postwar term for Westerners.” --Edwin O. Reischauer, Japan: the Story of a Nation, (Alfred A. Knopf: New York, 1981), pg. 255.

“Turning to Japanese attitudes towards ‘foreigners’ as opposed to foreign countries, it is worth recalling that the word ‘foreigner’ (gaijin) still carries the connotation ‘white man’ (hakujin) and usually excludes Chinese and South East Asians as well as Africans and black Americans.” --Endymion Wilkinson, Japan versus Europe: a History of Misunderstanding, (Penguin Books: London, 1980), pg. 126.

Wilkinson joins Kitahara in stating that gaijin equals Caucasian in the post-war period. Reischauer implicitly agrees, assuming "Westerner" equals "Caucasian". Best, J Readings 12:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Dillon

A new single-purpose account deleted the publicly verifiable Thomas Dillon quote in the Japan Times because he apparently didn't like Dillon's comments on the word gaijin. Rather than start an edit war with the new user, I'm placing the citation on the talk page until such time as it's necessary to reinsert it. J Readings 12:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I was born a gaijin. I grew up a gaijin. I came to Japan a gaijin. It's always been as natural as gazing out a window and appreciating the landscape yet not being one with it. I fit in Japan because I matched the role. I was a gaijin from the get go. I suspect a lot of us were. More than this, I suspect there are many Japanese who feel like gaijin too, viewing themselves as enduring extras in their long-playing epics of life. But none of this is necessarily negative——as all "true" gaijin will understand.

It's also important to include the part of this article which does reflect the negative and racist connotations of the word when Thomas states:

"From the outsider's view, responses to the word "gaijin" can range from those who growl at the racial overtones of exclusion and discrimination, to those who embrace the goofy-but-lovable barbarian role to the max, and on to those who want nothing to do with the term "gaijin" whatsoever and only wish to sink silently among the masses and become as Japanese as possible. For most foreigners, perhaps, all three of these visions hold true, each at separate moments."

This part is important to include as it provides balance. He is providing an opinion where he asserts that none of this is "necessarily negative" and also when he acknowledges the "racial overtones of exclusion and discrimination". I find it interesting that Thomas Dillion acknowledges in the above paragraph that people do see racial and discriminatory aspects to the term. 203.129.53.227 (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)203.129.53.227

I don't think 'racial overtones' deserves to be in the lead, but is should be in the body. 123.2.122.15 (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Meredith Stuart

I just wanted to put another quote on the talk page from a published author commenting on the word gaijin:

Not all foreigners are gaijin to Japanese and quite a few natives of Japan are gaijin. There is a logic to this mess, but it is hardly logical. It is true that 'American' (Amerikajin) is a synonym for gaijin for many Japanese. At one time, at least when the U.S. auto industry was undisputed leader of world autodom, the term connoted awe and respect. But certainly not to most Europeans or citizens of American states north (Canada) and south (from Mexico to the Falklands) of the United States. Most, including a few sensitive U.S. citizens, can only resent being so stereotyped. From the Vietnam War era to the present day, 'Americans' still come off as the ugly American: boorish, uncultured, money-flashing/-grubbing, monolingual impertinents; potential drug-fiends, CIA agents or both. (Never mind that they are generous, friendly, honest, helpful and so individualistic as to defy all stereotyping.) Japanese, however, do not apply the word gaijin to all foreigners. In fact, it doesn't even apply to all 'Americans.' Asians, for example, are Indojin (Indians), Chugokujin (Chinese), Chosenjin (Koreans -- disregarding political realities of north and south which prevent the use of the term in broadcasting) and so on for most non-Europeans of color. None of these terms carry connotations of respect, although nearly all are the historical and cultural superiors of Japan in the same way Europe is to the U.S...In short, to the majority of Japanese, gaijin simply means hakujin (white men, whites, Caucasians, in that order) and seldom applies to people of color. The misapplication of amerikajin simply guarantees insult to a good many whites as well.

My comment: Paul Meredith Stuart seems to be joining Kitahara, Wilkinson, and Reischauer in stating that gaijin means Caucasian or -- to be more exact -- "American" in most of the post-war period. Moreover, Stuart meets Kitahara half way in agreement by implying that the term is definitely not derogatory, but goes one step further by discussing the ways in which it could be "offensive" (which is different from being derogatory). When it was applied to those foreigners working in the American auto industry, "the term connoted awe and respect." But because gaijin was a synonym for 'American', the term could be considered offensive (Stuart thinks) by inadvertently excluding non-Americans. J Readings 14:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Stuart’s take sounds pretty reasonable to me, as does your take on it. I think the offensive–derogatory distinction is particularly pertinent because it clears the intent test and places responsibility for any taking of offense where it belongs. But how much of an analytical work is Stuart’s? Does it pass muster as a reliable source? As always, best regards, Jim_Lockhart 15:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: I don't know. What's certain is that Stuart is not an academic. My inclination is to divide all of these publicly verifiable comments by publication type -- academic, author/journalist and activist -- as we did with other Wikipedia pages, so the reader knows in advance what he or she is getting. It would certainly prevent the reader from being misled into believing that any one published comment is representative of the entire field of knowledge. J Readings 06:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Rambelli Fabio - わたしは「外人」ですか

Nobody's mentioned http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110004041388/ this article yet written (in Japanese) by http://www.sapporo-u.ac.jp/bunka/rambelli.htm this guy, correct? Although not without a fair number of つっこみどころ, such as "ポリティカル・ウンコンシアス" and "すごい変なアクセント", not to mention being somewhat lacking in depth and more so a description of one man's experiences (the author's), it is nonetheless relatively academic and may be reasonable as a source for the article (especially since there seems to be somewhat of a lack of sources actually written in Japanese). Just thought I'd throw it out there. Additionally, http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/110000226452/ this article also popped up on google scholar and looked potentially interesting, but it looks like I'll have to see if I can get an interlibrary loan in order to access it myself. If someone has more immediate access than I do, it may be worth looking up. 131.252.231.155 21:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Gaijin Smash

The term appears to be a neologism that is not found in any reliably sourced dictionaries. The two sources that were previously cited (UrbanDictionary.com and the blog Japan Probe) are both insufficient and unreliable for the claims made. See WP:NEO. Another editor has already reverted these edits twice (thank you). I'll post a small note on the original contributing editor's talk page regarding this particular issue. Best, J Readings 12:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Just some notes:

Gaijin Smash is a title of CD by a Canadian punk rock group, "Science Ninja Big Ten" released in 2006[3][4]

There are also web sites http://www.gaijinsmash.com and http://www.gaijinsmash.net .--Jjok (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Deborah Gewertz and Frederick Errington

Hopefully, I spelled their names correctly. These two academics also commented on the word gaijin in an edited Duke University Press publication in 1993. Indeed, they join Reischauer, Kitahara, Stuart, and Wilkinson in stating that "in popular usage the meaning [of gaijin] has been narrowed to refer more specifically to Caucasian foreigners.". FWIW, J Readings (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not oppose to describe using this book published in 1993, however, the comment: "in popular usage the meaning [of gaijin] has been narrowed to refer more specifically to Caucasian foreigners." seems inappropriate. My pov is that Caucasians and Africans are apparently non-traditional Japanese and easily designated as gaijin, but it is basically the matter of the distinguishability. For example, suketto gaijin in Nippon Professional Baseball is used regardless to the nationality and not preferably used for Caucasians.

By the way, why the reference section does not show the published year?--Jjok (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You`re right, yeah, thanks for catching that. I think it was because the template didn't have a date function, so at the time, I didn't bother playing with it. I added the date. Hopefully, this works.

I think I understand what you`re saying about the baseball reference, but this is why attributing the comments by reliably sourced publications in the Usage Section will help sort out the mess. Do you have one we can use?　J Readings (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Their description just does not match with the actual usage I believe and seem too occidentalistic. At least, African and Indo-Europeans will be equally designated as gaijin based on their appearance. I am rather interested in how they concluded such way. Are there any statistical analysis or comparative studies in the book?

• Deborah B. Gewertz[5]
• Frederick K Errington[6]

I have no wonder that they both are Caucasians and the description had been made based on their own experiences. If there are any analytical description beyond their own experiences, it is pretty noteworthy.--Jjok (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Google book p.633, ref. 25 p. 633 is actually a part of an article entitled "Bwana Micky": Constructing Cultural Consumption at Tokyo Disneyland by Mary Yoko Brannen[7] (p. 617-634) (she also seems enough gaijin). The referred description seems appearing between p. 627-629 that is unfortunately not part of the preview.--Jjok (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I found the PDF file while the reference # is 23 in this paper published in 1992. The description seems particularly referring the usage in the context of the Cinderella Castle in Tokyo Disneyland. I understand that gaijin can be narrowed to refer more specifically to Caucasians there.--Jjok (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the links. Well, in response, reading through the other cited authors on this talk page, Gewertz and Errington are not the only ones to link the word gaijin with the word Caucasian or Westerner. Edwin O. Reischauer, Paul Meredith Stuart, Michio Kitahara, Endymion Wilkinson, and (indirectly) Jackson Huddleston, Jr. all make the same connection. In fact, come to think of it, I also recall reading the gaijin = hakujin connection in Japanese dictionary glosses, too, but please don't ask me to cite which dictionaries. I'd have to go back and look through them all. FWIW, there is a list of dictionary glosses that you can read through in the talk page archives that I made here, if that would be more helpful. The other thing I'd like to mention is that if we simply attribute different definitions to RELIABLE SOURCES (as we're supposed to do), it sort of becomes a get-out-of-jail-free card. We're not saying that any one definition is correct. I agree with you 100% that it would be great to have a specific authoritative and objective study devoted solely to the word, and Hoary mentioned that once before, but I haven't been able to find one yet and not for lack of trying. The alternative is just to present the mosaic, while keeping in mind the policy importance of undue weight. J Readings (talk) 02:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice and interesting research. I understand the first one (②　外国人。特に、欧米人をいう場合が多い。) since it was published in 1943 during the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere era and Asians were recognized as fellows of Japanese while the third Daijirin published in 1989 edited by ja:松村明 (1916-2001) still has the same definition. I remembered that I minded the definition because of the description in Ethnic issues in Japan#Other groups and they are easily recognized because of their significance as well as Africans.

"Western" foreigners in Japan, particularly those from Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, are often called Gaikokujin or Gaijin.

Anyway, the definition of Shimeikai is always interesting and closest. Gaijin has exactly the same meaning as foreigner and stronger sense of outsider than gaikokujin that gives some foreigners trying to adapt Japanese culture offensive feeling since the discrimination is done mainly based on the cultural differences rather than the nationality.--Jjok (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Jackson N. Huddleston, Jr.

The author wrote a book entitled Gaijin Kaisha: Running a Foreign Business in Japan. The following is what the author has to say about the nature of the word gaijin:

Gaijin is the appellation the Japanese give to all foreigners, or aliens, with an emphasis on the alien concept. Thus, gaijin kaisha means an alien company on Japanese soil. More specifically, it represents a Western company in Japan, since to date few companies from Asia, South America, the Middle East, or Africa have established more than token corporate representation there. The term gaijin kaisha in this book refers to a Western corporation in Japan that is either a wholly owned subsidiary, a branch, or a joint venture with proactive foreign management. A foreign/Japanese join venture without proactive foreign management is in reality a Japanese company. The term also does not refer to a corporation of convenience, such as a one-man office for tax purposes.

Pamela Z and "Yafonne" (sic)

RomaC wants to cite an Arts & Entertainment story entitled “Pam Plumbs the Foreigner” written by someone called “Yafonne” (no surname; no bio) in the article’s lead in order to support the sentence, “The word is often the subject of debate as to its appropriateness, particularly in its shortened form which is considered by some to be derogatory.”

I have several problems with this sentence. The major concerns involve:

• Placing the assertion in the lead section, given the developing body of the text. (WP:LEAD)
• Undue weight given to this source in the lead versus all of the other reliable sources that contradict it, both within the article and currently on the talk page. (WP:UNDUE)
• The reliability of a small Arts & Entertainment story written by an unknown concerning a play written by someone who lived in Japan for six months as an appropriate source to claim that the word is considered by some to be derogatory. At best, it only reflects Pamela Z’s opinion (WP:RS) and even then…
• Pamela Z never claims in the article that the word is derogatory.

My impression is that the Pamela Z play can be included briefly in the Usage section along with other movies and plays that discuss the word in passing (thanks for finding it), but certainly not in the lead and certainly not as representative of something beyond its own scope. J Readings (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for handling this delicate matter so well. Jim_Lockhart (talk) 01:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether you guys think "gaijin" is derogatory, but whether some people do

Well, we have an internet poll on the largest English-language Japanese portal website, Japan Today, with half the respondents saying they find "gaijin" derogatory; we have naturalized Japanese professor and author Debito Arudo claiming "gaijin" is racist; we have 13,800 Google hits for "gaijin +derogatory"; we have major media in Japan self-censoring usage of "gaijin." That's more than enough to establish that some people think "gaijin" is derogatory. Thanks for your very careful ongoing attention to this particular article. RomaC (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes common sense can be a good friend for the Wiki editor. The fact that we are having this discussion and citing sources and so on proves that "gaijin" is controversial, or at least there is a controversy about whether the word is controversial, which in turn makes the word controversial. To debate that there is no debate is nonsensical. The reason there is a debate on "gaijin" is that some people regard it as derogatory. But I won't split hairs regarding intent vs received meaning so am replacing "derogatory" with "offensive." RomaC (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, RomaC, but what we are doing is what all editors do. Since reliable academic publications on the word are virtually non-existent, unfortunately, we are looking at other source materials -- as many as possible, in fact -- in order to edit an encyclopedia article that complies with both policy and content guidelines. Please feel free to take your best case to administrators or outside editors if you disagree, but they're likely to tell you what was already stated above and elsewhere: google hits are meaningless, Arudou's e-mail on his personal website is inappropriate, and the Japan Today internet poll -- as a reliable source -- is worse than meaningless due to likely sockpuppet manipulations. That said, please keep looking for in-line citations for this article. Those are always useful to consider. Happy Holidays, J Readings (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, J Readings, your arguments on this are tendentious at best. Mathematically, the statement "some people regard it as derogatory" requires there are at least two people (of any kind, not Nobel scholars) who think it is, and there is ample evidence that eg. Debito Arudou (1) and "Yafonne" (2) think so. So, yes, some people find it derogatory. You may think they're wrong to do so, and I'd agree with you, but that doesn't make them go away. Jpatokal (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jpatokal. As I said, if you feel so passionately about this issue --- i.e., that there are "ample" reliable sources available to place that assertion in the lead section --- I encourage you to either post your sources on the talk page (which everyone welcomes, of course) or, alternatively, seek outside arbitration or consultation on the various noticeboards. The only thing that I ask is that if you choose the latter, as a courtesy, you let us all know where you posted so that we can track the discussion. Regards, J Readings (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

JReadings -- why did you write "professionals" and then change it to "editors"? Just curious. Also, when you write "we" whom do you refer to? Forgive me, I ask because it looks like you regard this article as your project, where you review all edits and approve all changes. You understand that anyone can edit Wikipedia, this is essential. I have assumed good faith but frankly your edits and comments on the Ethnic_issues_in_Japan page concern me. RomaC (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "editors" because "professionals" implies that we're all being paid to edit this article. We're not. Editors is more appropriate, so I quickly changed it. As for "we", I'm referring to all of us as editors of this project. I'm glad that you continue to assume good faith, RomaC. J Readings (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

J Readings; i object to your attempt to enforce your POV on others in this article. Having read the discussion section extensively it is obvious that you object to the term being described as derogatory and having racial overtones despite numerous solid references to this FACT being provided by myself and others editors previously. I have noted that you have nominated the lead part of the article for protection. This is clearly a mistake as CONSENSUS has NOT been reached and indeed the article is labeled as having contentious content, which in itself would seem to imply that at this stage it is inappropriate to protect any part of the article.

I find your continuous reverting of edits and clear disregard for WP:NPOV disturbing and it is clear you have a pre-conceived idea of the term Gaijin. Let's be clear, it is a racial and ethnic slur (on occasion) as as such the term needs to be labeled as such and reference to it recorded in the both the introduction and main body. I suggest at the least a 'controversy' section be re-designed. What doesn't need allot of work is the Etymology section. What does need work is updating the modern usage of the word to include the contentious and racist aspects of the term (which has been referenced with reliable sources). The introduction should introduce the term in it's historical context, inform readers that there negative associations to the usage of the word in modern times, which are disputed by some, then refer to the main article for the Etymology, Controversy and modern usage sections. As such the introduction for the word 'nigger' is an appropriate model to use for this article. Finally, i also note that you claim there is consensus yet a review of the history and discussion pages related to gaijin would suggest very strongly otherwise, again leading credence to the notion that you are trying to enforce your own POV on this article. I respectfully suggest that you focus your energies of the Etymology section and let others try and develop a balanced introduction and controversy section that highlights the very conflicting and strong views that are held on the term Gaijin. # 203.129.53.227

Actually, 203.129.53.227 (why won't you register, btw?), your edits appeared to have been reverted because they were (initially) unsourced, later unreliably sourced, and finally in conflict with guidelines and policies. Other editors asked you to contribute to the talk page discussions. Until now, you refused. Now, based on your single purpose history for editing Wikipedia, I'm trying to think how this is going to play out. We ignore the 20+ Japanese and other English dictionaries that were cited that don't support the "racial slur" lead, or any of the journalistic or academic sources that don't support the word being a racial slur, and instead do something bold: we can put all the weight on the MIT dictionary gloss (which says that the term is "slightly derogatory"--but ignore the "slightly") and the ethnic racial dictionary gloss (and ignore the partisan aspect to it--but let that pass, too), then make the nigger page the model (because based on these two sources all the other sources are now irrelevant), fill in the blanks with some original synthesis of non-related sources (or, more likely, no reliable sources at all) to create the "controversy" section, put that gist into the lead of the article (because the lead will now emphasize those points to the reader), and then mold the lead and the article to read like the "nigger" page. If experienced editors notice something is wrong (like Slp1, Bendono, Jim_Lockhart, Vapour, Hoary, et al.), we can "respectfully" tell them to mind their own business or, alternatively, blame me. I admire your gumption, 203.129.53.227. You really have strong convictions about this word. For the next six months, I'm going to try to avoid looking at this article. (I was doing really well up until today. Shame on me for looking!) Best regards, J Readings (talk) 10:58, 3 February

2008 (UTC)

Reading, appreciate your responses. I haven't registered as i am moving house and ISP in the next two weeks, and unfortunately my current ISP doesnot have access to the physical network so rather than register with a soon to be defunct email, i just edit and post as is at the moment.

The problem with this word is that it is so controversial. Even looking at the VAST array of NON-verifiable and reliable sources, one cannot ignore the fact that the word is contentious at best. However, we need to keep wit WP guidelines. This i understand, but the problem inherent with this word is that the available material (as with most books and articles on language usage) is behind current usage by at least a few years (if not a couple of decades).

This is partially due to the (potentially) racist nature of the term. Studies on Asian Racism have only really begun to become accepted by mainstream academics. Indeed, in my personal experience there is STILL a large section of the academic community involved in the study of racism and it's manifestations (language, government policy, anthropological issues etc) that still hold the view that only people of european descent can manifest racism. A classic example of this can be found here: http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm in the column no 375 "Diversity homoginised". Note the following quote from this program that is delivered to EVERY commencing college student at this institution: “A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. 'The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination…."

Why is this relevant? because this type of paradigm exists, there is, in the type of literature that is relevant to looking at how words are used to label, discriminate and reinforce prejudices a overall bias that tends to ignore other examples of racist language and behavior. Whilst not directly relevant to what is being discussed it is much like domestic violence against men: only very, very recently has this topic even been acknowledged.

So in terms of the word "Gaijin" there is no doubt (in my mind) that the term is racist and negative. There is also no doubt that people continue to use it in Japan without meaning it to be used as such. However, as with most things related to communication more weight must be placed on the recipients interpretation of the word being used to label them. The word "Nigger" was originally not a negative, but morphed over time into a very negative term, and now attempts are being made to 'reclaim' that word by sections of the african american community.

I am arguing that the word "Gaijin" is in the same flux at the moment: it is taken as negative by the people it is applied too but the people that use it don't (yet) see that. Looking at some of the Japan times articles and other message forums only reinforces this view. So in terms of the research available, I think over time we'll see more and more reliable references come to light. Right now however, the article does need to be balanced up. I think at this stage not enough coverage is given the disputed aspects of the term (hence my recommendation to make a controversy section, but probably vastly different to the original one). I also think the lead needs to direct people attention to either the controversial section (which does seem to attract alot of attention) or the Etymology and history aspects of the word. This then allows the article to cover the strict Etymology and history aspects, whilst still acknowledging the controversial aspects of the word in a way that doesn't detract from the Etymology and history aspects of the word. Hence my opposition to protecting any part of the article at this point in time. You may think i'm engaged in an edit war with you but from my perspective i see the same thing. I see a small group of people enforcing a POV over the objections of many previous editors. I think now that some sources have come to light that yourself and others who seem apposed to any mention of undeniable racial and derogatory aspects cannot be dismissed it is time to work together to balance the article and not simply continue to reject reasonable edits. Oh, and as the for jibe made by another editor (Slip1) about 'google searching two words and posting it doesn't make research" I have this to say: I was well familiar with the works of Philip Herbst, google books just happened to be the most convenient way to post the section supporting the claims of term being racist in overtone. I see nothing wrong with that methodology to locate and post sources. If i can find another 'tidier' way to post those articles and link, i will do so. So lets move forward and get some balance to the article. Let's not protect the intro as it's obviously not reached the consensus stage and as the article states, it does contain controversial aspects, so how can we protect and lock something that is in flux? Just a suggestion: remember that consensus can change over time, as per WP:CONSENSUS 203.129.53.227

Thank you for responding at such great length, 203.129.53.227 and explaining your views in more detail. The issue that I can see is that you believe that "the term is racist and negative", "that the word "Gaijin" is in ... flux at the moment" and that "the available material (as with most books and articles on language usage) is behind current usage by at least a few years (if not a couple of decades)." The difficult is that WP needs to go with the existing books and articles on language usage, even if they are years out of date, and even if they are in fact wrong. The main mantra of WP policy page on verifiability is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". A lot of what you have mentioned above is your original thoughts, ideas and opinions and cannot, by policy, be included here.

You say that the term has "undeniable racial and derogatory aspects" but so far, you have provided three references, one from a book by an American author called "The Color of Words. An Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Ethnic Bias in the United States" (who amusingly talks about going as far afield as Chicago in his researches!) Herbst doesn't actually call the word racist himself: he describes his intention thus "The entries in this dictionary used in the US today that carry ethnic bias or are commonly regarded as controversial or confusing ethnic usages". Instead he quotes author William H. Forbis saying so in 1975 in a book called Japan Today. Do you know if Forbis is an expert in Japanese language usage? Forbis also wrote a book about the fall of the Shah of Iran, and one about old time cowboys in the Wild West. Is Forbis' opinion (and his opinion alone) notable enough for a comment in the LEAD about possible racist overtones? I don't think so. Your other references say that it is "slightly derogatory" and that it can be used in a derogatory manner to Japanese students which is hardly the same as the word itself being derogatory. As I said, 203.129.53.227, you may be quite correct about racist and derogatory usage, but we need more and better verifiable sources for this. Especially that the word contains "racial overtones" in the lead of the article. I won't edit the article for a couple days to give you a chance to find some references that make the case. Happy searching. --Slp1 (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

J Readings said "We ignore the 20+ Japanese and other English dictionaries that were cited that don't support the "racial slur" lead, or any of the journalistic or academic sources that don't support the word being a racial slur, and instead do something bold: we can put all the weight on the MIT dictionary gloss (which says that the term is "slightly derogatory"--but ignore the "slightly") and the ethnic racial dictionary gloss (and ignore the partisan aspect to it--but let that pass, too), then make the nigger page the model (because based on these two sources all the other sources are now irrelevant), fill in the blanks with some original synthesis of non-related sources (or, more likely, no reliable sources at all) to create the "controversy" section, put that gist into the lead of the article (because the lead will now emphasize those points to the reader), and then mold the lead and the article to read like the "nigger" page. If experienced editors notice something is wrong (like Slp1, Bendono, Jim_Lockhart, Vapour, Hoary, et al.), we can "respectfully" tell them to mind their own business or, alternatively, blame me. I admire your gumption, 203.129.53.227. You really have strong convictions about this word. For the next six months, I'm going to try to avoid looking at this article. (I was doing really well up until today. Shame on me for looking!) Best regards, J Readings (talk) 10:58, 3 February"

It's difficult to take the self-professed impartiality seriously when you cherry-pick the data like that. If you read back through, there's more than one source for the offensive interpretation (Kodansha anyone?). I shouldn't need to tell you this but, sources that remain silent on a topic shouldn't be taken as support for one position or another regarding that topic. So there's no need to "ignore" them, as you state. I think what you're feeling is the wrath of readers who know more about the topic than the editors. It's frustrating to watch the ship's captain wring his hands in befuddlement desperately not wanting to believe what his crew are telling him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.27.250.213 (talk • contribs) 06:01 20 February 2008

Hi 122.27.250.213. It's flattering that you think that I'm "the ship's captain." But I'm an editor, just like everyone else, who simply wants to write an accurate encyclopedia entry reflecting all policies and guidelines. I realize that there are some people out there who either resent those policies and guidelines, find them inconvenient, or simply are unaware that they exist so they assume bad faith of other editors. I understand all three possibilities because (hey) such is the internet.

I also hesitate to respond to you because this matter was (thankfully) almost completely resolved in a civil and productive way, so there's no real need to reopen old wounds. That said, maybe clarifying a few points in response to your comments wouldn't hurt: (1) we were discussing "undue weight" and "lead section" writing, two aspects of Wikipedia culture that you might not have read about yet (which is not a damning offense to you, BTW, or meant to be insulting). (2) This issue was about the "racial slur" aspect being prominently placed in the lead without sufficient substantiation that merits it being there, in keeping with those policies and guidelines. (3) You mention Kodansha and William Wetherall. His encyclopedia entry discussed the "offensive" aspects to the word as, he believes, were held by many non-Japanese foreigners and not by the Japanese themselves. Wetherall's opinion was supported by multiple academic citations that corroborated his view, so putting that aspect into the lead was fine by me and (apparently) others. (If you check the William Wetherall section you can read about that in more detail.) However, there is a subtle but important difference between the words "offensive" and "derogatory/slur". The former focuses on the listener. The latter focuses on the speaker. The reasons some non-Japanese were "offended", so the argument goes, stems from the exclusionary perception of the word. Were these non-Japanese right? Please understand: It doesn't matter for the purposes of editing this encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia is not a battleground. My point was that including a potentially contentious edit that the word gaijin is also a "racist slur" requires substantiation in proportion to what is written on the topic. That is not my opinion, BTW. That is Wikipedia's instructions when it comes to WP:FRINGE, WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. As Slp1 and others rightly pointed out, I think, if you have multiple sources that don't discuss something in particular, then maybe it's because it was a non-issue to begin with. Why give an extreme minority of a minority the same weight in an article as everything else when there is so little to support it? It's a legitimate question.

Finally, the Japanese and English dictionaries: I personally think that it's funny that we haven't included most of their glosses yet at all, especially when RomaC just mentioned a dictionary below yesterday in attempt to support his position. But that's something that definitely needs to be done later in a responsible and open manner. Right now, all I can say for sure is that many dictionaries have tags to inform the reader if the word is "archaic," "dialect," "elegant," "historic," "literary," "obsolete," "slang," or a "vulgarism" to name a few. In fact, I'm looking at Kenkyusha's New Japanese-English Dictionary right now. The entry for gaijin does not tag it with anything, despite having these tags. The bottom line is that not only can we make limited temporal inferences based on dictionary entries, in my opinion, but also, if dictionary and encyclopedia glosses are accepted in the article (which apparently editors have allowed and encouraged for this entry), then we should actually study them all in full and accurately reflect the reality of what they say. If you disagree, by all means, please contribute to the discussion on dictionaries. J Readings (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

J Readings makes a good point. I believe that NONE of the reputable Japanese dictionaries list Gaijin as being derogatory. You'll see it clearly, when you compare the dictionary definition of Gaijin (外人) against a truly derogatory word, such as Ketōjin (毛唐人).

The following are the Daijisen's definitions of: 外人 (Gaijin) vs. 毛唐人 (Ketōjin). Here are my translations...

• Gaijin: 1. Foreigner, especially European or American. 2. Outsider
• Ketōjin: Word used to describe foreigners in a condescending manner. Originally used to describe the Chinese people long ago, later used for Europeans and Americans.

By the way, if your dictionary does not list 毛唐人 (Ketōjin) or 毛唐 (Ketō), your dictionary is severely limited, and is not an authoritative dictionary of Japanese terms.

Also, I don't think any of the cited minority opinions should supercede these reputable Japanese dictionaries, which clearly do NOT consider Gaijin to be derogatory. Please don't redefine the definition of Gaijin to suit somebody's personal opinions.--Endroit (talk) 09:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both J Readings and Endroit that the evidence from the current Japanese and Japanese/English is important and currently a major lack in the article at present. I would like to see these added as soon as possible. I don't feel capable myself, since I don't know Japanese at all. I should also add that I am very uncomfortable about the inappropriate way J Readings has become sort of whipping boy on this page. Many editors, including, myself, share his concerns that minority views (and often personal opinions) of the word, with comparatively few/no reliable sources to support them, have been given undue prominence in the article and in the lead. --Slp1 (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

With regard to all the sources that take the trouble to specifically indicate that the term is not derogatory, does anyone find that instructive? Why would we need such clarification on this point if it was not in any way derogatory?

Some of you seem dismissive of non-Japanese sources, or overly reliant on Japanese sources. The fact is, asking a Japanese source whether the word is derogatory is like asking an 18th Century textile factory owner whether child labour is a bad thing. The answer will be no. Using the term is a natural part of the Japanese culture, the implications of which Japanese people do not appreciate because they have no need to.

I understand however, that no one here is concerned with the truth. Fair enough, I won’t bang my head against a brick wall (any further). One would think though, that the “non-truth” policy of wikipedia should be put somewhere on the top of each page so that it’s more readily apparent. Cheers. 122.27.250.213 (talk) 08:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you should abandon this, even if there are a few persistent people wikilawyering to censure negative reflections of the word's meaning. From the wiki article for Jap we find the following in the lead: "Jap is a term originally used as an English abbreviation of the word "Japanese." Today it is regarded as an ethnic slur, though English speaking countries differ in the degree they consider the term offensive." The reference is from a Japanese-American, Gil Asakawa. The interesting thing is Asakawa's opinion piece, published on a website, is not so very different from that of American-Japanese Debito Arudo's opinion piece on "gaijin" which has been rejected as a source by some here. Stick around and I will back you up against double standards. RomaC (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

RomaC. You may or may not have noticed that I actually added a bunch of the sourced information about the negative interpretations of the word that is currently in the article, and noone objected to this material being included once it was sourced. This is an odd way to censor information as you claim (or did you really mean censure?, sorry if I got this wrong). The issue, has has been pointed out several times is how much weight to apply to this position especially in the lead. Frankly the issue is not helped by suggestions that we disregard policies and guidelines or fallacious arguments such as saying that just because some other articles don't follow the verifiability policy we should here too. Particularly as there has been no consensus to do so (guess what, another policy). For myself, I don't know or care whether the word is neutral, derogatory, racist, or a compliment, and I am open to intelligent argument and verifiable information about any position. What I see here are a few accounts (mainly single purpose) wanting to push their personal point of view of the matter, without providing the required verifiability for this position. Yes, like it or not, 122, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth. Slp1 (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Mayumi Itoh

Here is an academic article published in the peer-reviewed Journal of World Affairs, Orbis, by Professor Mayumi Itoh (University of Nevada, Politics Department). Itoh writes (my emphasis in bold):

The Japanese call all non-Japanese gaijin, which literally means 'people from outside.' While the term itself has no derogatory meaning, it emphasizes the exclusiveness of Japanese attitude and has therefore picked up pejorative connotations that many Westerners resent. The Japanese treat foreign visitors politely, but always as outsiders.

Itoh cites Edwin Reischauer’s The Japanese Today, pp. 395-400. Prof. Itoh’s comments also echo those of Paul Meredith Stuart et al.: it might be offensive to some, Itoh argues, but the word is certainly not derogatory. J Readings (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese call all non-Japanese gaijin, which literally means 'people from outside.' While the term itself has no derogatory meaning, it emphasizes the exclusiveness of Japanese attitude and has therefore picked up pejorative connotations that many Westerners resent. The Japanese treat foreign visitors politely, but always as outsiders.

Changing the emphasis sort of changes the message doesn't it? J Readings, I am sensing some ownership issues on this page. I don't like it is not a reason to be excluding the information that some people consider the word derogatory. Please consider this. Cheers! RomaC (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop attacking me personally, RomaC. You're better than that.J Readings (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Gomenasai. JR, I know you have put a great deal of effort into this article. It's on my watchlist. Now, permit me -- when other editors have made changes to the article it cannot be said that your reactions might not sometimes seem protective. That's what I mean by ownership issues. You have resisted attempts to include information on the controversy that surrounds the word "gaijin", a controversy particularly pronounced among foreign residents in Japan.

While I'm being a bit frank, I also believe you might be over-relying on academic sources, which is not the only place Wiki can look to when dealing with a colloquialism. As many editors have pointed out, if "some people" regard the word as derogatory then even if you don't personally hold that view and can make and source compelling arguments against it, the information belongs in the article. I think there is also a problem referring to gaijin as "a common abbreviation of gaikokujin", as this may suggest to casual readers that "gaijin" simply evolved from "gaikokujin", when in fact "gaijin" predates "gaikokujin" by centuries. These are two areas of this article that I believe need revising. I didn't push for changes when I first came here, but as I said I have since seen other editors make changes only to meet a persistent defence. I hope you can consider these points. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi RomaC. Sorry for the belated reply. I haven't had a chance to come back to this talk page. I'm not sure how to respond because your points about content editing are still unclear--but more on that later.

First, I want to clear up this very unusual (and terribly unfair) misperception that you have about me. For some reason, you keep implying (incorrectly) that I personally think that the word gaijin is not derogatory, therefore I must have some kind of agenda. I'm disappointed that you think this way, especially since I've repeatedly stated my intentions here (among other places). I said it then and I'll say it again, "I’m not attacking anyone’s personal beliefs. I’m neither for nor against the usage of the word. I simply want to write an article that’s consistent with WP policies and guidelines...all of them. It's frustrating." I hope that you'll see past whatever personal problems that you might have with me, so that we can work together in the future.

Second, I agree with you that I have spent an inordinate amount of time researching this word and maybe it's time for me to leave (like everyone else that's come before me). When Exitmoose, Jim Lockhart and I first came to this article two years ago, we all thought it was going to be so easy to find sources to substantiate all of the claims made in ExplodingBoy's version of the article, especially the old "controversy" section. We did everything by the book. We put up tags, so that editors could have time to source their edits; we went to the libraries and looked through our own bookshelves; we looked up sources online; we cross-referenced our findings with WP policies and guidelines; we asked administrators and experienced contributors what they thought, etc. The problem was: the more we knew, the less we knew. What constituted undue weight in writing this article? What constitutes a reliable source? What can acceptably be located in the lead section of the article? What constituted original research and original synthesis? What constitutes a fringe view when researching and editing a general article on a subject? Who qualifies as a "prominent adherent" (Jimbo Wales' term) of a minority view, and how does one know when "a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not"?

Essential questions to ask on Wikipedia, wouldn't you agree? Unfortunately, some editors (mostly single-purpose anon IP editors) who don't seem to know anything about these WP editing issues or even respect them, want to barrel ahead and put whatever they want into the article as if it were their personal soapbox. (Check out the anon IP replies to Hoary et al. above regarding where these users are getting their sources from. They don't have any! They just assume that their personal experiences are somehow relevant. (^_^))

Third, I keep putting up citations on the gaijin talk pages because I was advised to do this by experienced editors. Other editors (see, for example, Jjok above) also find it useful to have these verifiable quotes for future use and reference. I never did it to intimidate anyone, RomaC. I did it for the sake of transparency. Also, you'll notice that I stopped having a problem with the word "offensive" being added to the article's lead because there are several verifiable authors on this talk page who now cover that issue in their writings. It's sensible to add "offensive" TO THE LEAD SECTION, so I said nothing.

Finally, why haven't I added all (any?) of these citations to the article yet? This is where I take a deep breadth and shake my head in despair. Because I know that I would have to sit down for hours and hours and hours to re-write the article to incorporate and vet all of these sources, while still being very mindful of undue weight, original synthesis, reliable sources, fringe views, attribution, and everything else that's expected of us, with the full knowledge that it can and will be reverted. I was desperately hoping that some other good Samaritan would come along and add these references to the article, so I wouldn't have to do it. Like you, I have a day job, and a life, and other articles that I'm working on. But nope, nobody wants to add these references! What does that tell us? I don't know really, RomaC (^_^). Your guess is as good as mine. In good faith, J Readings (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

RJ, I think you've done what you can. Your list of references and the citations you have left are about all you can do, for the reasons you've already stated above—those that would be the source of your despair. What does it show, for instance, that I'm not taking over as the good Samaritan for you? That I know that all the hard work would eventually get reverted, undone, etc., little by little. It seems to me that Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects of a political, religious, or philosophical nature, are all destined being forever in flux between extremes of opinion, as long as some framework is not put into place to ensure that NPOV and balance is maintained—such as by banning fly-bye changes by SPA contributors and their ilk.

Anyhow, your list of references is now part of the permanent WP record—no one can remove it with justification. Users who want to seriously research gaijin and all its implications will just have check them all for themselves.

I guess this is just one of the limitations of open-source editing that we'll have to live with. And I guess it's time for me to talk Gaijin off my watchlist, too. Kudos for all the hard work, and best regards——Jim_Lockhart (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me understand this -- according to this source, the word is pejorative, and the interpretation you present afterward is that this means it is "certainly not derogatory"?

Dictionary.com Unabridged

pe·jo·ra·tive /pɪˈdʒɔrətɪv, -ˈdʒɒr-, ˈpɛdʒəˌreɪ-, ˈpidʒə-/[pi-jawr-uh-tiv, -jor-, pej-uh-rey-, pee-juh-] –adjective

1. having a disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect or force (...)

(my emphasis) RomaC (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"racial slur"

An IP editor has recently repeatedly added "racial slur" the lead. If s/he would like to discuss that here is the place otherwise I'm sure your additions will be reverted. Thanks. RomaC (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added 'possibly' and 'racial overtones' to try and soften the lead section and to also subtly highlight the lack of agreement from source material on this matter. ````203.129.53.227

Recent References

Four references have recently been added by 203.129.53.227 to support the idea that Gaijin is used derogatively.

• The first: [8] is written by a Chinese-American dance critic (Ruth Yafonne Chen)[9] in a very small circulation Bay area American paper. It seems unlikely that she is an authoritative source on the claim.
• The third: [10] is a list of items in a collection and not a reliable source for the claim in any way. It is not enough to find the word "derogatory" and "Gaijin" in the same sentence.

• The others are more interesting: The Mit Encyclopedia of the Japanese Economy is a reliable source and says that the term is "a slightly derogatory term". Japanese Higher Education As Myth mentions that Japanese students who learn good English may be called Gaijin in a derogatory manner. This is not the same as saying that the term is derogatory. Any word can be used in a derogatory manner.

I will let other editors weigh in with their opinions on whether they agree that these two books are reliable enough sources for the claim. Obviously, I do not believe that they are. However, in the meantime I have left these sources in the article.

203.129.53.227, I want to thank you for taking the trouble to find sources as requested. Unfortunately, doing Google searches to find the two words together are not enough. Please read the core policies of WP: Verifiability, No original research. Please also read WP:CONSENSUS. There appear to be multiple editors who disagree with your insistence on the term "derogatory" and it would be much better to try and convince other editors by finding valid, notable sources that make the claim. I have zero opinion on the matter myself, and am happy to be convinced. I also encourage you to read all the material on this page to understand the discussions that have previously occurred. --Slp1 (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Let's see what the collection says:

"45 Gaijin and Furyo Gaijin - Foreigners in Japan Notes, press cuttings (1957-80) and typescript relating to foreigners in Japan and the use of the word 'Gaijin' as a derogatory term"

It's in black and white, there are a number of press cuttings and notes on the use of the term Gaijin as derogatory term. Now, getting access to those sources would be very interesting don't you think? but in the interim, we have proof that the term has been used in a derogative manner from at least the late 1950's. The very existence of this collection also shows that the term has attacted some controversy for a substantial period of time. 203.129.53.227 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.53.227 (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it would be interesting to get access to the original articles, and they might be reliable sources depending on what they are. But this list is not a reliable source in Wikipedia terms to my mind: who wrote it, when, where, what is their expertise? None of these are known. It is self-published and without the editorial oversight required. See [11] and [12] for more details. If you want the opinion of others then you can ask the folks at WP:RS/N for their thoughts. BTW, if you will pardon me, can make a a couple of suggestions, 203.129.53.227. It is better to put your comments at the end of somebody else's message, not in the middle, as it is hard to know who said what. I have regrouped the posts because of this. Also it would be good to sign and date your posts by using with four tildes (or the little signature icon about the message window) at the end of your message. Slp1 (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

203.129.53.227 has added another reference and another claim that the term has "racist overtones". I have moved the sentence and references down to the body of the article, since it was inappropriate to have so much detail in the lead. I have balanced with claim with cited opinions of others who do not see it as derogatory. --Slp1 ([[User talk:Slp1|talk]]) 21:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Whilst i disagree with moving it too the body, i agree that it needs to be balanced with others that say it is not derogatory. 203.129.53.227 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.53.227 (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That's good to know! Thanks --Slp1 (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the racial slur reference from the lead. I notice that J Readings agrees with this. We only have one reference that mentions this, and it only talks about America usage. This is not enough for the racial slur reference to be in the lead, in my opinion. Offensive covers the point and seems to be more in keeping with the evidence we have so far. BTW, I appreciate your comments further up the page, 203.129.53.227 and am glad to see that J Readings has responded. I am travelling extensively in the next two weeks, and need to leave for the airport so cannot reply in detail at the moment. I appreciate your patience in advance! --Slp1 (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

As you will have observed, I have edited the article to remove some aspects of the usage section and the lead and to add a lot more referenced information. I believe that there is enough evidence from reliable sources that some consider it a derogatory term (whether correctly or incorrectly) and my hope is that my phraseology talks about the issue in a NPOV way, given the evidence available. What do others think? --Slp1 (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A week ago, above I wrote

"As I said, 203.129.53.227, you may be quite correct about racist and derogatory usage, but we need more and better verifiable sources for this. Especially that the word contains "racial overtones" in the lead of the article. I won't edit the article for a couple days to give you a chance to find some references that make the case. Happy searching."

I did not edit the article for a week and no reference has appeared to corroborate the "racial overtones" comment in the lead, so I removed it (along with greatly expanding the body of the article). IP 203... has re-added the terms and I have removed it again since it is unreferenced and unsourced. Please do not replace the "racial overtones" comment without finding some reliable sources to back up this claim. --Slp1 (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment further up the page re: ""From the outsider's view, responses to the word "gaijin" can range from those who growl at the racial overtones of exclusion and discrimination, to those who embrace the goofy-but-lovable barbarian role to the max, and on to those who want nothing to do with the term "gaijin" whatsoever and only wish to sink silently among the masses and become as Japanese as possible. For most foreigners, perhaps, all three of these visions hold true, each at separate moments." From Thomas Dillon, an already used quote. Please read my comments regarding this reference. This is in addition to the other reference originally provided :::::::One of the most common complaints voiced by Euroamerican residents in Japan concerns the word gaijin

These are two references, hence i used the term "possibly racial overtones" to direct users attention to the usage section (which you have also vandalized) and provide both sides of the argument and let them make up their own minds. This is entirely reasonable. 203

203... You are new to WP so a couple of tips. It is good to end your posts with 4 tildes to date and sign your posts. You can also use the signature button (the 10th blue button from the left) above the editing window. Second, you have used the word "vandalism" about my edits a couple of times. Vandalism has a very specific meaning here and you can see what it is and what it is not atWP:VAN. If you check the policy page you will see vandalism is not a word to throw around inappropriately. BTW it would also be much better if you would register: you don't even need to give an email address to sign up, and can add one later if you wish.

So far, for the word Gaijin having racist overtones, you have amassed one writer from the 1970s who does not appear to be a Japanese specialist (see my comment above), and the opinion of one writer about whom you yourself said "He is providing an opinion where he asserts that none of this is "necessarily negative" but notes that some people complain about the word because of the racial overtones of exclusion and discrimation. Why is his terminology and ideas so different from the sentence I added "However, though the term may not used with negative intent by most of Japanese speakers who use it, it is seen as derogatory by some and reflective of exclusionary attitudes"? Why are you so insistent on adding to this that the term is claimed to be racist (or have racial overtones), when exclusionary is already mentioned and well sourced Especially when there are no highly reliable sources? Especially when Dillon actually uses the word exclusion himself? It seems a clear case of undue weight to add this phrase, and this is particularly the case in the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article. Where is the part in the lead about the fact that many people don't see it as offensive: why on earth should we have both offensive and racial overtones in the lead, when it appears to be only a minority opinion. It seems from your quotes above that it is your belief that the word is racist, but I am sure that you understand that is not enough, and that you need to be very careful about pushing your own point of view in this matter. We don't start from our point of view and try to prove it: we look at what the most reliable sources say and summarize them. That is what I did, and spent many hours doing it. Perhaps you could do me the courtesy of making your case here on the talkpage page before readding your edits yet again: I left the page unedited for a week previously, waiting for you, and now perhaps it can be your turn to take a break. Make some suggested edits here, and we can talk about them. BTW, I will add your Dillon reference (correctly formatted) as a reference to the exclusionary comment. The other reference is about a different phrase "Gaijin Kusai" [13] Slp1 (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Slip, you are being plain difficult now. I am aware of WP's policies and it seems you are intent of dismissing valid references and hence you are pushing your own POV about the term. As i state previously the lead section is neutral and allows readers to make up their own mind - hence the use of the word 'possibly'. Finally, "Gaijin Kusai" is relevant as it is a phrase using the word "Gaijin" much like any other phrase that starts with a racist word e.g Nigger nose, chink eyes etc. It has direct relevant because it again shows the racial and negative connections the word Gaijin has in Japanese society. Accept it and move on. I will continue to revert your changes as they are unwarranted and the article is approaching balance. If you have any meaningful suggestions to add, please let me know. 203

I should point out that the use of "gaijin kusai" as a derogatory term does not necessarily indicate that "gaijin" is also derogatory. "-Kusai" is added as a suffix to many neutral terms to make them derogatory, such as "bimbo kusai", meaning "to behave like a poor person", or "oyaji/baba kusai", "to act like an old man/woman". I would also dispute De Mente's assertion that "gaijin kusai" derives from the dietary and bathing habits of early visitors to Japan (not that Japanese hadn't noticed such habits), but instead from the other usage of "-kusai" as in "acting/being like", but I can't say this with any authority. -DrHacky (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding yesterday's edits by 203...

• "gaijin kusai": it is not clear that it is the gaijin part of the phrase that is the derogatory part of the phrase. DrHacky argues one way, 203 argues another. The text itself says nothing. Since in any case phrases are not just a straight additions of separate words and can come to mean something different in combination (e.g. "lady of the night") this reference [14] is not an informative addition to a page about Gaijin.
• This reference [15] was used to cite this sentence: "The term Gaijin is also seen as a having (sic) racial overtones as described by Soo im Lee "Gaijin or gaikokujin commonly refers to racially different groups". I am not sure the point of this sentence. It is quite clear from the current text that the term Gaijin commonly refers to racially different groups (ie Caucasians and others, but also sometimes not eg Japanese returnees from Brazil for example). There is a big difference between a word that identifies "racially different groups" and racism, which seems to be 203...'s oft-repeated point to push. The word Black people refers to a racially different group: so what? It isn't racist to say somebody is black. In any case, Lee does not say that the term has 'racial overtones' (whatever they are) at all, which is what this sentence claims.
• I have made comments about this reference [16] several times above, and have had no response. It would be good to know why the opinion of two non-Japanese specialists are notable here.
• Many editors have reverted 203's wish to include "offensive, derogatory and possibly containing racial overtones" in the lead, and so it is fair to say that there is not WP:CONSENSUS for this edit. My personal reasoning is that adding "derogatory and possibly containing racial overtones" puts undue weight on this interpretation of the word in the context of a very short lead, as I have expressed several times before. As well as original research with the `racial overtones` thing. 203..., the onus is on you to build a consensus for this edit here on the talkpage and not edit war over it. Slp1 (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone, sorry to revert but i think one reference about caucasians having high status isn't enough to make it into the lead of the article, likewise i've noted attempts to get the so-called 'racial' aspects in the lead as well. INMHO both belong in the main body, not lead. Thanks 123.2.122.15 (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting 123.. there is not just one reference but several to this, as you can see if you check the article. I will be reworking the sentence to accommodate some of your cconcerns, as there needs to be a comment about in the lead about the neutral or positive connotations to balance the interpretations as negative.--Slp1 (talk) 17:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate all of Slp1's hard work so far. I realize that it's time-consuming and a major hassle. Incidentally, can someone please re-check footnote #25 for Wetherall. We're citing Wetherall's encyclopedia piece to say that the word gaijin is not derogatory, just offensive, then we're citing a different Wetherall piece to say it's derogatory again? When I read the Wetherall #25 footnote, he specifically says some people find the word to be offensive (fine), but he doesn't say it's derogatory. He then mentions "paranoid foreigners" (no idea what he's trying to imply) and then mentions jingai, not gaijin. Is that original synthesis of Wetherall's piece? For me it's a question mark, but I don't want to remove it unilaterally yet. A little more discussion is needed on that one.J Readings (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added some new refs (and so has JR!) it isn't ref number 25 any more. I actually read both of these Wetherall articles fairly similarly: the term isn't considered disparaging/derogatory/offensive and is not used in that fashion by most Japanese, (this comes from Wetherall the encyclopedia article, and other sources) but is interpreted as being so by some, and complained about widely.(This comes from both Wetherall articles and other sources) At least that was what what I was trying to summarize.Slp1 (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Slip, i've checked the references and sorry, they dont' add up to definative proof. There are ton of references about the racist nature of the term (more than the positive view of caucaisan post ww2) but that is not enough (INMHO) to put into the lead (but where is it in the body?) so i will remove your edit. Let's discuss some more over the coming week. 123.2.122.15 (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's "Slp1" not "Slip", 123.2.122.15. Also, if it's okay with you, let's try to avoid hyperbole like "ton of references" about anything. It's over-the-top. Anyway, I think what's important at this stage is to have some kind of clear understanding about what is the difference between the word "offensive" (emphasis on the listener) and "derogatory" (emphasis on the speaker). Once we start confusing the two and thinking they're the same thing, it muddles the references and creates confusion on the citation process for these dictionary glosses. Speaking of which, at some point we need to reference properly the 20 + Japanese and English dictionaries we have in the Usage section. No rush, though. J Readings (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

123... This is Wikipedia, and the "definitive proof" you are seeking is not required: verifiability is, since the threshold for inclusion here is "verifiability not truth". If you have "a ton of references" about the racist nature of the term, then please produce them and we can discuss. We do however, have multiple references stating that the term is neutral or even positive, and others that suggest that the term is considered offensive/exclusionary. Both views need to be reflected in the lead. You have repeatedly removed"The word gaijin has traditionally been a positive or neutral term, reflecting the status of Caucasian foreigners to which it is mainly applied", for which there are multiple sources:

• "the term itself has no derogatory meaning" (Itoh)
• "In short, the old foreigners (gaijin) assume the role of the upper class. Gaijin (outsiders) in post-Second World War Japan almost inevitably referred to *White Americans and Europeans. Although Europeans and Americans may have low educational attainment and low occupational status in their own countries, they are almost inevitably regarded as superior to Japanese" (Lie)
• "The former are referred simply as Gaijin, while the latter are either non-Japanese or Gaikokujin. The foreign labourers fall in the latter category. American and European businessmen are the Gaijin. They are at the top of the hierarchy." (Suzuki& Sakamoto)
• "It is true that 'American' (Amerikajin) is a synonym for gaijin for many Japanese. At one time, at least when the U.S. auto industry was undisputed leader of world autodom, the term connoted awe and respect."(Meredith Stuart)
• "In the generic sense, it refers to all foreigners; but in a more restricted sense it designates only Caucasians - that is, those foreigners who are worthy of admiration in some respects" (Befu)
• "For example, gaijin literally means a “person from outside,” namely a foreigner, and that means “Caucasian.” To describe a Japanese in this manner is a compliment to him or her. To be “similar to a foreigner” (gaijin-no youna) means to be similar to a westerner, and this too, is a compliment. When such expressions are used to describe facial features, the implication is that the face is similar to a western face, and this is also a compliment."(Kitahara)

That the term can have positive or neutral interpretation is well cited from reliable sources, as you can see. It is entirely verifiable. And this doesn't even include the multiple dictionary entries to which J Readings refers.

Let's look at what the lead guidelines. The lead needs to be "a short, independent summary of the important aspects" of the article below. The lead must therefore contain the information that some consider the term positive and neutral, as well as the fact that some consider it offensive etc. Your repeated removal of one aspect of the word's interpretation ignores the Lead guidelines, places undue weight on the negative interpretation of the word, is in violation of the neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia, and appears to be an attempt to push your point of view that the term is 'racist'.

Please cease removing this well-sourced information. On the other hand, if you have some reliable sources to add to the article and to support your contentions, then let's hear about them.

On to something else. I actually think it would be a very good idea to add the information about the dictionary definitions as soon as possible. I am not keen on the link to the talkpage articles that is part of the article currently, and think it would be much better to include this directly as references.

Do other editors have any opinions about any of this? Slp1 (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We have references supporting the fact that some people regard "gaijin" as derogatory. That should be in the lead in my opinion. What should not be there is the claim that the word has "positive" connotations, or the confusing claim that it is a "common abbreviation" of gaikokujin, a word it predates.RomaC (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

From the lead guidelines:"The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." J Readings (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused by your comment and your edit, RomaC. Why would 'positive' be POV and "offensive and exclusionary" not? Of course they are point of view, different points of view, and we need to present both POVs (that are published in reliable sources) in order to maintain a balance. See above for the several sources that suggest that some see (or saw?) it as a compliment, a sign of respect or admiration.Slp1 (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If you mean to POV bargain, then the word "derogatory" also belongs. Further, if you want a kanji at the top of this article then it should be the kanji for "gaijin" because that is the word the article is about. And we can't refer to gaijin as "a common abbreviation of gaikokujin" any more than we can refer to "Jap" as "a common abbreviation of "Japanese," because these are controversial words [17]. RomaC (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What does "POV bargain" mean in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, RomaC? We've always been trying to write an encyclopedia entry based on reliable sources, verifiability, undue weight considerations, fringe views, and following the lead guidelines (among other policies and guidelines). This is what Slp1 and other editors have been trying to convey to you and the couple anon IPs with a remarkable amount of patience and skill up until now. Put differently, if you have (for example) 15 to 20 reliable sources that say one thing, and only 2 or 3 sources that say another, then it makes sense, according to the policies and guidelines, to give the 15 to 20 reliable sources a spot in the lead. My understanding is that "balance" from the lead guidelines does not mean that a minority of a minority view (or worse, fringe views) suddenly get an equal seat at the lead table simply because it might be found in one or two reliable sources. As a matter of fact, the fringe guidelines make it quite clear that such an editing attempt not be done at all, but let's not get into that. I'm happy to be corrected if you or the anon IPs actually took the time to discuss what these policies and guidelines say in balance with other policies and guidelines. The problem is that we can never have that discussion because few editors want to talk about policies, guidelines, cited sources, etc. on the talk page. Regards, J Readings (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have also been patient and mostly an observer of your activities on this page. Now, 1) Please do not lump me in with anon editors. 2) What Slp1 did after the "offensive" notation was finally added to the article was then prefix that with the suggestion that the word was "positive" -- that is POV bargaining. 3) Can you concisely answer this point to start: Why, in an article on "gaijin," is the lead and the illustration (of the kanji) about another word ("gaikokujin"). ThanksRomaC (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I take it that you're still not interested in discussing what the official policies and guidelines (lead, fringe, undue, etc) say. That's fine. As for "POV bargaining" can you please direct us to the policy or guideline page that discusses "POV bargaining"? I've looked, but I couldn't find it. And of course, you -- like the anon IP user -- want to put the one reference that talks about its "racist" overtones back into the lead in defiance of what the lead guidelines say. Why you insist on doing this in defiance of official policies and guidelines, I don't know. It's a mystery in itself. J Readings (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As for point 3 from RomaC above- this is an encyclopedia, which means the article is about a "thing", ie a foreigner in Japan, which may either be refered to as a "gaijin" or a "gaikokujin". The article is not about the "word" "gaijin"- wiktionary is for discussing the meaning of a word. It is therefore natural for both terms to be discussed in the lead, as anyone interested enough to look up the article will be interested in the relation between the two terms. And in common modern usage, "gaijin" is an abbreviation of "gaikokujin", whether or not the term "gaijin" existed with a different meaning in historical usage. --DrHacky (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

RomaC, what I actually did was to do a lot of research into this issue and radically rework the body of the article based on what I found.[[18]] I did this well after the word offensive was added to the lead. Yes, I then changed the lead to reflect the information I found and what was now in the article, per WP:LEAD. I am not Japanese, don't live in Japan, don't know Japanese (either the language or people). I had never heard of the word (consciously at least). I have absolutely no reason to POV bargain as you allege. What I do want is to have an accurate article that reflects the sources. Here's why I think that derogatory should not be in the lead (though it is in the body of the text, in more detail):

Try doing a google scholar search for Gaijin and Derogatory. [19] There are 79 hits of which many are not relevant, accessible or where the word derogatory is not being used in relation to the word Gaijin. Please note that I haven't looked too closely into the reliability/notability of these sources, since this is just supposed to be a fairly rapid survey.

• "Gaijin is slang and is often, but not always, used in a derogatory way"
• often a derogatory term
• gaijin, the common if somewhat derogatory term
• While the term itself has no derogatory meaning,
• gaijin being a common though somewhat derogatory Japanese word

A similar google books search offers 40 hits. [20] Here we get in the hits on the first two pages:

• the slightly derogatory, but guilty-as-charged term used for foreigners
• It took me a long time to understand that being called a "gaijin" wasn't derogatory.
• gaijin A slightly derogatory term meaning outsiders for foreigners
• It sounds derogatory, but it is not.
• Gaijin is of course the rather derogatory Japanese word for foreigners
• gaijin—a slightly derogatory word
• gaijin, "she exclaimed, using a derogatory word for outsiders
• The connotation of the word has long been derogatory,
• gaijin — a slightly derogatory word used to connote anyone who isn't Japanese
• "gaijin," a mildly derogatory word for foreigner
• gaijin (literally "white man," a faintly derogatory term

Of these 16, we have 3 people who say that it is not derogatory at all, 9 people who say it is slightly, mildly, rather, faintly, or somewhat derogatory, 2 people who say that it is often derogatory, and 2 people who say that it is derogatory in any unqualified way. I don't believe that it is appropriate to use the word derogatory (unqualified in any way) in the lead when the majority of verifiable sources qualify their use of the word. I feel that using the words "offensive and exclusionary" avoids this problem nicely, by covering the overall intent and meaning of sources. But perhaps you have another suggestion to deal with the problem? I have commented several times on the source (Color of Words: An Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Ethnic Bias in the United States) that you have added for the word "derogatory" (but which doesn't actually mention the word derogatory at all) but received no response. To repeat "it would be good to know why the opinion of two non-Japanese specialists are notable here", especially since the stated goal of the book is to look at words that "carry ethnic bias or are commonly regarded as controversial or confusing ethnic usages" in the United States. --Slp1 (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

JReadings, thank you, I am familiar with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The first is that Wiki is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. No matter how much work an editor does, s/he does not own an article, and if a given article goes in directions they prefer it didn't, that simply has to be accepted as part of the Wiki reality. DrHackey, we have both gaijin's etymology and "gaikokujin" (a different word) dealt with in the second section. Slp1, the article qualifies "derogatory" by clearly noting (and sourcing) that some people regard gaijin that way. Thanks. RomaC (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

But wouldn't you say that this is giving undue weight to the extreme minority who say that it is derogatory (without qualification)? Given my survey, surely the text should at most read that some people say that it is 'slightly or mildly derogatory' or something similar? --Slp1 (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

RomaC, thank you. When you get a chance, please tell us more about your theories on the "Wiki reality." I would like to understand a little bit better how you think. In any case, now that you're on-the-record as also saying that you're "familiar" with all Wikipedia policy and guidelines (which, of course, includes the guidelines on how to write the lead -- please see WP:LEAD and undue weight), there shouldn't be any more excuses as to why we cannot work together in sorting out the references in a responsible and open manner. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Slp1. In the Google Scholar search, 13/16 citations recognize the word as "derogatory" to some degree. (FYI, my personal take is that the offensiveness of the word is felt mainly among Japan's foreign residents, who have jobs and families in Japan and resent being called an "outsider" in their own communities, but that's my OR of course.) Anyway, to both you and JReadings, the controversy about the word does belong in the lead simply because it is rare and noteworthy when a word generates this amount of debate about its offensiveness (as seen on Google Scholar and elsewhere), and is considered 'taboo' by mainstream media. Words tagged as offensive are rare in any language -- the Random House College Dictionary has 207,000 entries of which only 300 are labeled as "offensive." [21] cheers RomaC (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi RomaC, of course the majority of the citations from the search say it is derogatory to some degree! When you search for Gaijin and derogatory, that is inevitable! The only point of doing this was to gauge how derogatory was qualified, and you have to admit that there are very few that go as far as saying that the word is derogatory without some softening qualification. BTW from my reading of all the available evidence that I can uncover, I think you are right about who gets irritated with the word, so no worries about OR! I agree that something about the "controversy" belongs in the lead, and that means including that some people consider it offensive. I have zero problem with that remaining in the lead. What I do have a problem with is adding the word 'derogatory' to the lead, because I do not think it is an accurate reflection of the majority opinion among sources who say it is derogatory to some degree. (And remember that this is a minority opinion in itself) I would prefer to avoid worrying about how to qualify "derogatory" for the lead and stick to offensive. I note you use the word several times above, and offensive is what the RH dictionary actually uses. I also have a big problem with 'racist', but that seems to be less of an issue than it was in the past. BTW, the word is by no means avoided by mainstream media. It seems like some do, but there are lots and lots of new articles, books etc that continue to be published that use the word apparently simply as a descriptor.--Slp1 (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

allo Slp1, as to "mainstream" media. In Japan the proliferation of cable and satellite TV is not great, there are for veiwers in Tokyo for example only six TV stations. Also Japan is a country of national newspapers, the Yomiuri and Asahi being the largest in the country. These broadcast or print media (except when quoting etc.) will not use gaijin but rather gaikokujin. On the other point, I think it would clarify the issue if the article explained that those most likely to take offense at "gaijin" are long-term foreign residents in Japan who resent being called "outsiders" in their own home. Do you agree? cheers RomaC (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting about the newspaper situation. I wonder if you could get access to the style guides of the newspapers. They would be an interesting reference. I seem to recall one being referred to in the archives. I myself looked at scholarly journals and books in English, and notice that the word continues to be used extensively by authors, scholars etc, in English if not in Japanese. Regarding your point, I think we need to go with what the sources say about this, which I don't believe is that far off what you have written. I don't recall anyone making a comment about who is most likely to take offence, so I am not sure we could say that, but I do think there are enough comments suggesting that foreigners in Japan tend to get offended. Here are a few of the references I would suggest looking at for properly sourcing such a sentence. The first and third are really quite old (1970s and 80s) which we should probably take into account too, I guess.

• many people so labeled, however, find the term exclusionary and thus offensive.
• and has therefore picked up pejorative connotations that many Westerners resent
• One of the most common complaints voiced by Euroamerican residents in Japan concerns the word gaijin....
• Gottlieb, Nanette (2005), Language and Society in Japan "It is the more common contracted version that has been the subject of irritated complaint: people may be pointed at by children and have the word gaijin either shouted or whispered though this is much less common in Japan today than it was thirty years ago"

Slp1 (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I almost forgot... I believe there are some very interesting comments in articles about how Japanese returnees (from Brazil for example) are seen as Gaijin and who are not too keen either. This would be good as a part of what you were thinking about. I will look up some references for this. --Slp1 (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Slp1. Agree with most of this. re: larger newspapers and television networks not using "gaijin," I asked a friend who worked at one about a style guide but so much in Japan is done with behind-the-scenes agreements it is hard to get sources.

Permit me to slip into OR for a moment, as you do not live in Japan. As I said before I believe many and probably most Westerners in Japan dislike being called "gaijin," this especially true for long-term and permanent residents. I would ask you to consider the reaction if Dany Laferrière was called an "Étranger," but it's not so easy to make comparisons with North America where non-native born residents are typically 10-20% of the population and mostly naturalized, whereas in Japan they are less that 1% and non-naturalized. This small group do not generally write or publish Japanese-language dictionaries either, hence their view will not prevail in a "source-count" competition. cheers! RomaC (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Mmm. Interesting. I actually think that the immigrant experience is pretty common wherever you live. In Quebec, immigrants (and even me, an anglophone born here) know that we can never truly belong. But speaking personally, I kinda like it that way! More seriously, the whole Gaijin issue inspires a spot of original research of my own. In Inuktitut, the word Inuk means person, and the plural Inuit, means people or the people. Non-Inuit are called Qalluunaq (plural Qallunaat). I am not sure of the exact derivation of the word, but suffice to say that outsider/Southerner are the general definitions. The word is used frequently by all sorts of people and in all sorts of media in a purely descriptive fashion. People use it all the time to describe themselves. At some points in history, when Southerners brought trade goods and work, the term was overlaid with all sorts of attributes of prestige, power and wealth.[22] Even to this day, many Southerners living in the North have more money and education than their Inuit fellow citizens. On the other hand, more recently, the term has been used to insult and marginalize Southerners and their views/contributions in the North. I have heard a few Southerners express their annoyance at a term that basically denies that they are "people" or human. I have heard a few describe the term as racist and discriminatory, while others are completely sanguine about the issue.

Does this sound a bit familiar? It does to me. There are several differences here, and one is that Qalluunaq doesn't have a wikipedia page! (though there is a Wiktionary page). The other is that despite the deeply held convictions and opinions of those who believe that the term qalluunaq is discriminatory, their opinion has not been reported anywhere at all. Just because a group of people believe the word is racist, does that make it so? What about the many, many people who use the word Qalluunaq about themselves without a qualm? What about the thousands of Inuit (whose language it is, for goodness sake) who use the word over and over again as a statement of fact and without any negative intent or purpose. What to do? Whose word is it anyways? Who should be writing the Inuktitut dictionaries? The Inuit or the Southerners?

Enough of OR. I don't doubt the deeply held convictions of Westerners living in Japan. But like the Southerners living in the North, it is not clear how much weight to give their opinions in daily life. Like it or not, here on Wikipedia we have policies and guidelines to direct us in these situations. NPOV policy states that "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each". In the case of Qaluunaaq there are no reliable sources saying it is racist/discriminatory so we cannot include this view, no matter how "true" it is to some people. In the case of Gaijin there are a few reliable sources about how some Westerners feel about the word and these can (and have been) included. We have to go with what's out there in reliable sources, and weight the article in proportion to what's out there. There are objective criteria, however imperfect, for determining the weight that should be applied to each view, and that is how we must operate until other reliable sources emerge. --Slp1 (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Koshiro, Yukiko (1999). Trans-Pacific Racisms and the U.S. Occupation of Japan p. 254

62. Contemporary standard Japanese dictionaries, such as Nihon kokugo dai-jiten (Shōgakkan, 1985), Shǖeisha kokugo jiten (Shǖei Sha, 1993), and Gakken kokugo dai-jiten (Gakken, 1990), all define the term dai-sangoku-jin as the special label applied to the Koreans and Formosans, Japan's former colonial subjects, during U.S. Occupation of Japan, whereas they define the word gaijin as specifically Euro-Americans (Ō-bei-jin), Gakken kokugo dai-jiten specified black people (kokujin) in the category of gaijin, along with white people (hakujin).[23]

I could not find the referring part while this is a nice reference for the definition of sangokujin. After all, gaijin is preferably used to refer persons significantly different from Japanese such as talking loudly in non-Japanese language on the phone in a train of Tokyo metro.--Jjok (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference for Ethnic Slur aspect???

Check it out: http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/ethnic_slur#G

I think it's OK to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.43.101 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your research on the matter, 203, and also that you brought the question you had to the talkpage. I think it is an important question. I'm afraid that I don't see anything in this dictionary to say who wrote it or even who/what Labor law talk is. It appears to be some sort of metadictionary but there is no information about what they are searching and how the information is checked. Without this information it would be hard to say that they had the kind of fact-checking and editorial oversight required (see [24]) And the fact that they link to the Wikipedia page about Gaijin is disconcertingly circular! I don't think it would qualify as a reliable source for being an ethnic slur, but you could always ask at reliable sources noticeboard for their opinion. --Slp1 (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is some information on it:

http://www.laborlawtalk.com/ and here again: http://www.aboutus.org/LaborLawTalk.com

Basically it's a law firm that seems to put together information from a variety of sources, wikipedia obviously being one of them! 203.129.43.101 (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I should have looked to the bottom of the list: this webpage is actually an old version of the Wikipedia article on Ethnic slurs. As such it is definitely not a a reliable source per WP:SPS "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources." --Slp1 (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, have you read "The Asian Mind Game" by Chin-Ning Chu? it has an excellent section of Japanese society and racial exclusion, and although it doesn't go into detail about the word Gaijin, it does outline how the Japanese see themselves as a Race, a Culture, a language and a Nation all at the same time (as other writers have also pointed out in a variety of sociological journals) but then using logic to go from that (well established point) to looking at the term Gaijin, a word that reinforces difference and (more importantly) NON-Japaneseness, it's easy to see why it has inherent racial overtones, but ho-hum, that's original research isn't it? 203.129.43.101 (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, though it sounds very interesting: I wonder how many other peoples would have a similar outlook in terms of language, race, culture, nationhood all being part and parcel of identity. Living in Canada, I would think many of First Nations peoples would have similar world views. But has you say, ho-hum, original research from me too! ;-) Slp1 (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think is the problem we are facing on this article. This is how i see it. Fact 1: the Japanese (generally speaking) see themselves as Race, Nation, Language and Culture all in one. Fact 2: Social exclusion carries high stigma in Japanese society. Fact 3: Gaijin is a term that fundamentally highlights difference i.e NOT Japanese (yes, there are exceptions, i am talking about norms) Fact 4: Gaijin is INDEED used in exclusionary and discriminatory ways, either as part of phrases or even simple "no gaijin" signs. So where does this leave us? Well, for one it's not hard to link together the facts and see that there is indeed a racial aspect. I provided a link reference from Soo im Lee, albeit is stuffed up inserting the qoute that day. You can also find a reference to it in Philip Herbst's book. Now, he is a recognised expert in cultural anthropology. Take a look here: http://www.greenwood.com/catalog/author/H/Philip_-_Herbst.aspx Now the fact that he only cites one reference to the racial aspect Gaijin doesn't make it a bunk reference for the purpose of this article. I'm not sure what your background is, but when i did my PhD (in Economics, on assortative mating as an economic theory) we didn't always include EVERY reference supporting our position, unless it was for thesis submission, often when writing for more lay-man orientated journals or for various other audiences you'd place just one that you felt best reflected your own research into the point within your presentation (and likewise for rebuttals). I think it's important to keep that in perspective when looking at Herbst's work. He may have found more references in the course of his research, but only chose to include one. This is not uncommon amongst academics that write for larger audiences (just pick up a copy of Hawkings A Brief History of Time as an example!). So maybe contacting him would be a useful exercise. In any case Ma'am, i think his work was discounted to easily as it is an area in which he is an expert. So where does this leave us with this article? As i said, i don't think it's hard to follow logic and see that Gaijin has racial aspects to it, and we DO have two references. We also know that as a term, it's being self-censored by mainstream Japanese media. We also know that some people in Japan (ala Debito) are actively campaigning against the usage of the term. All verifiable. So, the real question is, now that we can verify the racial aspects, now that we KNOW that the term is controversial (as evidenced by news papers writing guides etc) why doesn't the article lead have that reflected? where is the controversy section? Sure, some people will say that this or that source isn't correct blah blah, but that's just pushing their own interpretation of the source (as was done with Herbst's writings for example). We need to come up with some wording that reflects the sources we have, and as i said in my first lengthy piece here on the talk section: this is an area of research where self-censorship and denial abounds. I don't think it is unreasonable to take the sources we have, consider the logic and circumstances and write a lead that includes: the positive, negative, racial, derogatory, pejorative, historical and controversy in a simple but effective manner. Likewise, a controversy section is warranted and needed for this term. Finally, i noted that some people dismissed Herbst's work on the basis that the book was largely about terms being used in north america. So what? does it matter where the term is being used? i mean, c'mon! if that is the case then the article should have somewhere that "this article refers to the term gaijin and how it is used in Japan ONLY" peace out. 203.129.43.101 (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask you an honest question? Can you clarify what "racial aspects"/"racial overtones" mean to you?--Slp1 (talk) 00:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure you can ask. It means this: the term defines a person as belonging to another ethnic or racial grouping. Oh, and just as a matter of interest Philip Herbts's has been used on wikipedia before here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Chicken_(gay_slang) 203.129.43.101 (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If that is all that you mean, then I am slightly scratching my head to know what all the fuss has been about :-) I don't think anybody disputes that the term mostly commonly defines someone belonging to a different racial group (ie Caucasians). This is clear in the article already, and there is "The word can refer to nationality or ethnicity" in the lead, as well as more details in the body of the article. And the problem, from my point of view, was not Herbst's book per se, but that it was the one and only reference for a claim that the word was racist, an extreme minority view based on everything I have read. While on the subject, please note, also, that Herbst doesn't even say that the word is racist himself: instead he quotes one non-Japanese specialist author from the 1970s who did.

I totally agree that it should be easy to write an article and a lead that summarizes the article and the various opinions of the word. Should be, but isn't. And there are various reasons for this, in my view. Partly it is because some editors are just figuring out the rules and policies around here, (which is fine, BTW). Partly it is because people are trying to work on the lead, when the main focus should be the article itself and getting that right. Partly it is because people are editing the article without discussing possibly controversial edits on the talkpage first. And finally it is partly because people have come with preconceived notions of the word and are trying to prove them, instead of doing the kind of general research required, and opening themselves up to the possibility that there are notable, reliable, verifiable sources out there that have a different POV, and that this POV needs to be expressed in a fair and balanced, undueweightish kind of way. That is why I disagree with 203's list of topics for the lead "the positive, negative, racial, derogatory, pejorative, historical and controversy" because it puts too much weight on the negative views of the word". Having said all this, I think that there have been optimistic signs of progress in most of these areas in the last few days. --Slp1 (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is acceptable as a source. RomaC (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Slp1, i don't think 'ethnicity' covers the racial aspect. Take a look here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ethnicity and then compare to here: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Race_%28classification_of_human_beings%29 So whilst there is SOME overlap in definitions, they are not the same thing exactly. Hence i would like to see the following: "The word can refer to nationality or ethnicity / race" in the lead. I think by putting the backslash in we can link the two concepts but also identify they are not the same, and HOPEFULLY that will allay the concerns some have about using the "R" word in the lead. So if there are no strong objects, i say that is how we move forward on that issue. Oh, and one more thing, RomaC - you think the source is OK? Peace out. 203.129.43.101 (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To 203... While I don't have a big problem with this edit, I think we should be very careful to find sources for all the information we add to the article. It saves so many problems in the long run. Can you find a source that makes this point? And while you are at it, maybe look for references showing that it can refer to nationality and ethnicity? --Slp1 (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do think the source is ok, absolutely. RomaC (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you just clarify what source you are talking about? I fear there may be a confusion Slp1 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... Slp1, i don't think we need to find a source that explicitly states "Gajin has a racial aspect" as this has already been established by Thomas Dillion, Herbst and Soo im Lee, that's three. As also discussed above we can, from looking at sources on Japanese society, very easily conclude that "Japanese" is not just a nationality, so hence any term that describes people as non-Japanese has, at the least, the potential to be describing a racial / ethnic aspect, and / or nationality / culture. So i think we already have three sources that verify the racial aspect (remembering there are overlaps with Ethnicity, but it does not replace) so now it's a matter of putting it into the lead, highlighting that it's not exactly a 'common' citation if you will, and in the body just a couple of lines with those three references. How does that sound? Nägemist! 203.129.43.101 (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It sounds quite problematic, actually, because, in addition to the already discussed issues for WP:LEAD, WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, you just described what is known as "original synthesis" and also a definite Wikipedia no-no. You can study the details regarding "original synthesis" here. J Readings (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, familiar with all that which is why i outline above the three sources we already have, so no it's not problematic, it all sourced. Nägemist! 203.129.43.101 (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're familiar with all these points, then it's unclear why you keep insisting that it should go in the lead and not simply in a very small portion (i.e., one short sentence in the body of the text) as attributed (see WP:ATT) to the author? If these 2 academics (let's put aside the journalist's op-ed for a moment), don't actually say "Gaijin has a racial aspect," why would you want it in the lead in the first place? Original synthesis says that someone takes fact A, combines it with fact B, and then produces original C. It's still unclear to me what you have described isn't fringe original synthesis. As for Endroit's suggestion (above) that we invoke attribution (and all the work that attribution entails), I'm beginning to think that this is the only way to resolve this issue in a responsible manner. I've put it off until now because it is a God-awful amount of work for one person, and Slp1 was kind enough to get us half way there, but it's still missing major portions of the cited materials from reputable sources. Best, J Readings (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Soo im Lee states: "Gaijin or gaikokujin commonly refers to racially different groups" Is that or is it not saying that Gajin has a racial aspect? 203.129.43.101 (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should bear in mind that the many Wiki project pages being cited above are meant to be helpful guidelines, and are certainly not absolute rules. Usually they can be read in many ways, often they conflict with one another. Here's a bit more on Wikilawyering, which does not help the project. I think the sources above are good enough -- gaijin has a racial/racist aspect. Cheers! RomaC (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay now we are getting somewhere: 203 would like to source "Gajin has a racial aspect" from three sources. Roma C. thinks that they even say they say it has a racist aspect:

An opinion piece written by Thomas Dillon. Who is Thomas Dillon? Not this guy I sure hope! But seriously, whoever he is, opinion columns are not reliable sources of fact for WP, only for the opinion of the author. In any case he says "the racial overtones of exclusion and discrimination", which is hardly the same thing as is being claimed here.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat that Herbst makes zero claims about the racism the word or even about race per se. He says the word refers to Westerners (well sourced from elsewhere) often regarded contemptuously. He quotes one 1970s non-Japanese specialist author who says it is a racist word. This is the one and only source that anybody has even found to say that Gaijin is a racist word.

Soo im Lee states: "Gaijin or gaikokujin commonly refers to racially different groups". She later talks about "racially distinct groups". Note that there is nothing about racism here. I don't find this particularly astounding or earth-shatteringly different from what we knew and sourced already, so I suggest we add this exact sentence, or something very similar, to the body of the article. That is the place to start with changes, not the lead.

I disagree strongly with RomaC's attempt to minimize our responsibility to follow guidelines and policies (which undue weight is, for example). There may be occasional exceptions to following the guidelines but I see zero reason and zero consensus to do so in this case.--Slp1 (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The problem that I (and others) have with RomaC's attitude is that "undue weight" is an official policy, not a guideline. It's true that WP:FRINGE develops the undue weight policy for the benefit of readers as a content guideline. However, if RomaC and others sincerely took the time to read WP:FRINGE, they would notice from the very beginning: "Wikipedia maintains a non-negotiable principle of neutral point of view in which all significant views are represented fairly and without bias, with representation in proportion to their prominence." The clause "in proportion to their prominence" is also part of the official policy of "undue weight." In fact, the "undue weight" continues with "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all." May not include tiny-minority views at all. That's quite interesting, actually, and goes back to Endroit's point (and mine, and Slp1's, and Jim_Lockhart's, and Yoji Hajime's, and Vapour's, etc., etc., etc.) that cited minority opinions should not supersede the vast majority of reputable Japanese dictionaries, linguists, and academics (all reliable sources) who do NOT consider Gaijin to be a racial slur--especially when, as RomaC just incorrectly asserted above, that these two citations don't even say that gaijin is a racist slur. --- J Readings (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

JReadings, you wrote: "The problem that I (and others) have with RomaC's attitude..." please do not presume to speak for others about my "attitude." But since you have been goading me here is some attitude: You have been riding shotgun on this article for a long time now, repeatedly reverting editors who made changes to the article to reflect the contemporary usage of the word. You had also hidden "gaijin" behind "gaikokujin," and made the spurious assertion that it was a "common abbreviation" of that word, when you should know it is not. Further, dictionaries and academic sources are not the best places to look for better understanding of a colloquialism. And, non-Japanese sources are perfectly valid when dealing with the controversy around "gaijin." It is not for Westerners but Japanese to decide if "Jap" is offensive/derogatory, not hetrosexuals but gays who decide if "fag" is offensive/derogatory, not whites but blacks who decide if "colored" is offensive/derogatory. So when you argue "minority view" are you taking Japanese as the sample group? Anyway I think we all agree the question of "gaijin" is not nearly so clear-cut as "Jap," "fag" or "colored," but we need not decide whether it is offensive/derogatory, we need only say in the article that some think it is offensive/exclusionary/derogatory/racist/whatever. That's all -- this is not a competition where one side sees if they can find a larger number of sources than the other. cheers! RomaC (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

RomaC: you need to calm down a little bit, please. I would suggest that if you dislike the research process so much, and it seems that you do dislike it, editing an encyclopedia might not be the right hobby for you. J Readings (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyone take a chill pill or two! Reading, please re-read what i wrote further up the page: "Hence i would like to see the following: "The word can refer to nationality or ethnicity / race". The sources we have support that, it's not the same as saying it's a racist term or racial slur, it is a FACT that the term has an ethnic / racial identifier aspect, so what is wrong with placing one additional word in the lead? 203.129.43.101 (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi 203...I appreciate and respect the fact that you are calm. We've already discussed the policy rationales and the text reasons above for why it would not be appropriate for the lead section. If you would like to attribute one small sentence to Soo im Lee, for example, in the usage section with an accurate quote and a citation, I would definitely support you. J Readings (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

JR, we are not bound to accept your policy rationales and opinions on appropriateness. Kindly curb your ownership issues and condescension. Hello 203, I agree the term "nationality or ethnicity/race" should be included in the lead. As we have shown it is rare and noteworthy when a word generates this amount of debate about its offensiveness and is considered 'taboo' by mainstream media. And we can source a ethnic/racial aspect to the debate. RomaC (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

RomaC: this is the last time I'm going to respond to you on this topic because, frankly, your comments are really not that constructive or civil. It's kind of pointless to even bother. For two years now, you provided very little research (if any?). You suggest that we disregard policies and guidelines. You continue to insult me by hurling unfounded accusations of "ownership," "wikilawyering," and "censure." You cited a dictionary in attempt to support your position, but then grow offended when others like Endroit cite many other reputable dictionaries which don't support your arguments. Let's face it, it's easy to conclude that you have definite personal problems with me based on the way you always single me out. Whether that is because I chose to follow the behavioral guidelines by putting research up on the talk pages or because I never found what you needed to support your long-stated personal opinion in unclear. What is clear is that you have very strong personal opinions about this word based on your own original research (as you keep mentioning above and in the archives). I don't. Never did, as I keep saying that to you and others in response. Like Slp1 and others, I just like to do research. Finally, 203... politely asked me again my opinion, and I replied. Slp1 also offered his opinions, as did other registered editors on this talk page. You don't like their opinions in the making of WP:CONSENSUS (hey, another policy)? I'm sorry that you feel that way. J Readings (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Jeesh, cry me a river JR. Frankly I am delighted that you will no longer be putting words into my mouth and making straw man arguments. What is obvious to me is that you are the self-appointed policeman on this article, and when you disagree with an edit you question the source, work to "out-score" it with contrary sources, strive to marginalize the info by moving it lower in the article, or try to intimidate the editor with Wikispeak. I have seen many people who study Wiki policy only so they can use it to their advantage, this is nothing new. Ok that's my response off my chest, hope we both feel better! no hard feelings, I do appreciate all the time you have put into the project. cheers RomaC (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi everyone; long time observer, thought i'd add my .02c Reading, i think you are treating this a little bit too much like a dictionary definition and not a encylopedia article. Also, i find it amusing that the Thomas Dillion reference is now being scrutinized after being used as an example of how Gaijin was NOT negative. Now that someone (203, whoever he/she is) has picked it apart now it becomes an 'op-ed' piece and no longer relevant? hmmm... seriously, i think RomaC and 203 have a point about the 'race' thing, i think it's been proven, i also think you need to take a step back and look at the fact that nowhere does any of the sources provided so far does it say that the word DOESNOT have an ethnic / nationality / race aspect. Sure, some might say it is not RACIST but that is not the same as the word having a definate descriminator based on appearance - by this i mean that the term usually used to discriminate (i.e identify) 'outsiders' on the basis of race / ethnic background / nationality / culture. So maybe, as a suggest, flip it around. Prove to all of us that the word Gaijin does NOT identify people of the basis of race / ethnicity / nationality. Over and out. 123.2.122.15 (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi 123... Thanks for your 2 cents. I think you have a point about Dillon, though it was me that was "picking it apart", not 203. If you look carefully you will see a couple of things, however. In the body of the text, Dillon reference is being used twice to reference people's interpretations (both positive and negative actually), not a fact about the word. Dillon's column is about his view of the word and mentions how other people respond to being called Gaijin. As an opinion column it can be used to source opinion but not facts. And that is how it is being used in the body of article, where it is only one among many other references. Your other comments suggest that you might need to read about the policies that have been set in place by the community. It is up to people who want to add material to the WP to justify the inclusion, not the other way around. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" from verifiability policy. And of course asking for a negative to be proved is not generally a useful way to prove a point. For example, could you find a reliable source that would prove that the English word "stranger" is not used to discriminate by the race? (which of course it isn't!) There is nothing out there to say that it isn't discriminatory, so it could be, right? Does that mean we should add somewhere that it is discrimatory? Of course not. Additions to the encyclopedia need to be verifiable, and both JR and I agree that something about how it may refer to racially different groups can/should be added to the body of the text because it is well sourced to Lee. I cannot for the life of me understand why people are so fixated on the Lead (which should be written last, as a summary of what is in the article) and so uninterested in body of the article, which actually determines what should be in the lead. In any case, despite your arguments, 123, I don't think that adding "race" to the lead has been agreed to here. There is a distinct lack of verifiable sources for the edit, which gives undue weight to something that is not even clearly in the body of the article. Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

References

• This page has gone referencing mad. One of the statements in the lead has seven inline citations. Are you serious? Surely this can be achieved with one or two of the most useful refs. As it stands, it reads like a childish argument going along the lines of "My POV has more cites than your POV"--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi, 210.23.146.66. You have just added that "Partially as a result of the offensive aspect," to the sentence the term has become politically incorrect and is avoided now by most Japanese television broadcasters.". This edit needs to be sourced. Gottlieb does not give any reasons for the avoidance of the word "The term gaijin itself is included these days by most broadcasters on their list of terms best avoided." Neither does Whiting in his book, [25] who merely states that gaikokujin is more polite. If you want to include this sentence you need to find a source that specifically states that the reason Japanese media avoid the term is because it is offensive. So far nothing we have found states this. Adding this is original research and synthesis because you are joining some dots to make a point. You are welcome to find some reliable sources that make your point. Please note that websites and blogs www.asianracism.blogspot.com such as you added to another page cannot be used as a source in this encyclopedia. There are quite a few rules about here, and a lot to learn about contributing, I'm afraid to say! --Slp1 (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, as an interested by-stander, i'd actually disagree that the "Asian Racism" website (www.asianracism.blogspot.com) cannot be used. I had a look at it and it mostly contains articles taken directly from well-established mainstream media (IHT for example) or peer reviewed journals. So i'd say that whilst the personal commentary that appears by that sites author is of course not in-line with reliable sources many of the articles it contains ARE reliable. As such i'd say the site simply serves as a useful repository for articles on such issues. Relevance to this article? npt sure about that one 09:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.161.222 (talk)

Yes, you are right, thanks for the correction. The articles themselves, sourced to their original publications would be fine. The commentary, obviously not.--Slp1 (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Gaijin and Guwaijin

It is correct to translate 外人 as both foreinger and outsider. However, when you read above kanji as gaijin, then only the former modern usage applys. The use of 外人 as outsider is from old Japanese, and at that time 外人 was pronounced as guwaijin(ぐわいじん). Here is a citation.[26][27][28].　You can get the similar result by reading any Heike monogatari. Anyway, Daijirin, which is used as a reference in the article also mention Guwaijin. Vapour (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Since this article is about gaijin, is it relevant to add guwaijin in this article?Vapour (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As of translation into English, I suggest either to translate properly as "outsider" or just use "外人" or "guwaijin", however not gaijin as that is a misrepresentation of classical Japanese language.

The edits are arcane and muddy the article. It can't be said there would not be historical/regional variations in pronunciation/writing of many if not most words in Japanese and other languages. It is natural to accept/address the common/contemporary form of this word. RomaC (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes there were and are many variation of spoken Japanese. However, before Meiji, there were only one single style of "written" Japanese. Japanese spoke in different dialects but all wrote in the exact same style, which was pronounced in the same way. After Meiji restoration, an attempt was made to unify the oral and written Japanese by making written style similar to colloquial Tokyo dialect. The movement was called Bungo-icchi. Therefore, as far as written classical Japanese are concerned, guwaijin is the only reading.

I have indicated several sources which clearly show that 外人 in classical text must be pronounced as Guwaijin. Moreover, the dictionary which is used as a source only show 外人 to mean outsider in classical text. Must we really rewrite the history of Japanese language and say that when ancient Japanese refers to outsider, they said "gaijin"? Plus, given the ongoing dispute, censoring the distinction between guwaijin=outsider and gaijin=foreinger obviously slant the presentation of this article. Whatever the ancient usage, modern usage of gaijin only refers to foreigner. Vapour (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Blatant misrepresentation in the lead

I haven't been actively following this page for a while, but I'm rather shocked by what's happened to the lead. Two points in particular:

1) Describing gaijin as a positive term misrepresents the source, which says that it can be a positive term for describing Japanese people doing foreign things -- not foreigners themselves. Personally, I find even this rather suspect and undue emphasis on a single viewpoint, as Google gets me 735,000+254,000 hits for the clearly negative 外人くさい・外人臭い, vs just 356,000+9,140 for 外人のような・様な.

2) Claiming "Possibly having a racial aspect (although this point is not strongly supported)" is totally disingeneous -- given that the words boils down to "non-Japanese", and the Japanese are an ethnic group very closely correlated with race, the word is obviously racial ("of or pertaining to a race or family of men", to quote Wiktionary). Now, whether it's actively racist is, of course, a matter of much dispute, but I don't see how you can feasibly deny that there's a racial aspect to the word. Jpatokal (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have troubles with the lead too... but not the same as yours, unfortunately!! The lead is supposed to be a summary of the text below where you will see that there are three references for the positive/high status interpretation of the word, and are talking about foreigners.

"Possibly having a racial aspect (although this point is not strongly supported)" I agree this should be deleted. As you say, it is obvious from the first part of the lead and text that it is mostly used based on race and ethnic origins. This sentence is a left over from earlier versions, where the word used was 'racist', which is not sufficiently supported/verified by the reliable sources available (ie there was only 1 and that was questionable). BTW, and as I am sure you realize, google searches and their results are not the way to write and determine this article, given the systematic bias it inevitable introduces. --Slp1 (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the body of the article, and the three cites for positive connotations of gaijin in the body are fine. Having read the bit at the end, I now understand the context of what lead is trying to get at -- but it's not very clear at the moment. Let me attempt a rewrite... Jpatokal (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Gaijin (外人, Gaijin? IPA: [ˈɡaɪʥin]) is a Japanese word meaning "foreigner" or "outsider".[1] The word is composed of gai (外, outside) and jin (人, person), so the word can be translated literally as "outside (foreign) person."

The word reflects differences in nationality, race, and ethnicity between Japanese and non-Japanese. By some, the term is seen as neutral or even positive, reflecting the positive image of Caucasian foreigners and Japanese aspirations to emulate them.[2][3] However, in recent times, the word has become regarded by some as exclusionary[4] and thus offensive[5]. It has become politically incorrect and tends to be avoided in Japanese media.

"[...]Japanese and non-Japanese, and its precise connotations are disputed." Disputed by whom? Who wrote about there being a dispute? I'm only asking at this stage. Seems like original synthesis or original research to me. Not sure which, probably just synthesis at this stage. J Readings (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly OR to state the blatantly obvious fact that people disagree about its meaning — but then again, no point in stating the obvious, so I've taken it out. Jpatokal (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that you misunderstood my point, Jpatokal, but that's okay because I think that I misunderstood yours as well. J Readings (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit confused, J Readings. I can't see this section; "Japanese and non-Japanese, and its precise connotations are disputed." Am I going mad?

If you are trying for another rewrite of the lead, Jpatokal, I suggest reading a lot of the talkpage comments above, because this topic appears fraught with difficulty and we have struggled very hard with getting a neutral lead that summarizes the article as it has supposed to do. I think that one interesting very well-sourced fact that is missing from the lead is that ethnic Japanese born and raised abroad also get called Gaijin, so it also gets applied in situations of cultural difference. I have been trying to figure out a way of including this, but maybe you have some ideas? --Slp1 (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's his third draft sentence above. It reads "The word reflects differences in nationality, race, and ethnicity between Japanese and non-Japanese, and its precise connotations are disputed." I'm asking about the clause starting with "between Japanese and non-Japanese....." J Readings (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I get it.. I didn't realize that was his draft!! Sorry! Now I do understand, I have a problem with the "between Japanese and non-Japanese" bit, for precisely the reason I gave above... it is also used to refer to ethnic Japanese who carry Japanese passport but who were born abroad. --Slp1 (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

A gaijin, pretty much by definition, is "not Japanese" (because if they were, they'd be nihonjin, not gaijin). As there's no way to sensibly compress the "who is Japanese" debate into a sentence, and the article body goes into the topic in detail, I'd just suggest linking the phrase into Nihonjinron. Jpatokal (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Not according to all of social science books, which have ethnic Japanese being called Gaijin, because they are 'outsiders' culturally, rather than non-Japanese racially.

[29] [30] [31] [32] [33]--Slp1 (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

See, that's precisely the "who is Japanese" problem. Are you Japanese if you hold a Japanese passport (national), if you look Japanese (racial/ethnic), if you act Japanese (cultural) or a combination?

But how about "The word reflects differences in nationality, race, ethnicity and culture between Japanese and non-Japanese"? Jpatokal (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate all the hard work Slp1 put into this article. It's a delicate hassle editing this thing. Regarding "culture," the problem is that the sources Slp1 cites are just referring to the nisei (mostly second-generation foreign-born Japanese in the Americas) in this context, so I'm not sure it's a good idea to include the sweeping definition of "culture" in the lead. Technically, the nisei fall under the nationality rubric, too, so it's a little unnecessary. Gaijin is defined by most sources as referring to either nationality and ethnicity (mostly Euro-American), sure, as the dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other secondary sources usually mention, but they don't specifically link "culture" with the word gaijin. To state it as a sweeping fact would be original research, I suspect. An alternative suggestion would be to simply add a very short caveat about the nisei, based on the sources we have and develop the point further in the usage section. J Readings (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not actually suggesting that 'culture' be put into the lead. I just don't think it is helpful to have between 'Japanese and non-Japanese' in the lead at all, and am using the Brazilian Japanese as one reason why did makes having the phrase makes things less clear, and more complex and debateable (as we have already found!) than the original. I really don't see what the advantage of it.--Slp1 (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't suggesting that you were doing anything wrong. I understand that Jpatokal was drawing the "cultural" inference from the nisei issue. Sorry for the misunderstanding. As for the nisei, I have no problem with them being mentioned in the lead and expanded upon in the Usage section. After all, it's referenced material from reliable sources. As for "Japanese and non-Japanese," to be honest, yeah, I agree. It's not helpful to make those loaded distinctions in the lead. Personally, I thought the sentence was accurate before when it just referred to nationality and ethnicity (as most sources would point out), but that's just my opinion. J Readings (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the sentence in its current form is awkward: "differences in nationality, race, ethnicity", sure, but differences between whom? I can only presume "Japanese and gaijin [non-Japanese]", but if not, then what is this referring to? Jpatokal (talk) 07:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess the honest truth is that I disagree, Jpatokal. I think that in context the sentence is clear, and adding "Japanese and non-Japanese," just muddies the water and makes it more, not less clear, because then you add the confusion of the question of 'who are the Japanese?' about which people have written books and scholarly papers! I tend to agree that 'nationality and ethnicity' probably covers it, but if adding 'race' can satisfy the other editors who keep trying to push the 'racist' card then I see it as a sourced edit worth making.Slp1 (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems the recently added "differences in" are causing the question marks. All the more reason to re-edit it to read "the word can refer to nationality or ethnicity," which only was only edited this week to include "differences in." I think it was fine the way it was before, more faithful to the majority of reliable sources, and less likely to provoke misunderstandings and original research. J Readings (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It is regrettable that the article is being used for soapboxing by some editors. Any "positive" interpretation of the word gaijin is clearly fringe yet the article leads with that assertion. There are many more sources that describe the word as derogatory, offensive or racist. RomaC (talk) 06:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about that, and reading through the history I cannot escape the conclusion that this was done in response to the other editors pushing the other side that you raised. I suggest removing the "positive" aspects, it's clearly more fringe than the negatve aspects. The neutral part should stay and the positive should be removed from the lead but retained elsewhere in the article 211.30.161.222 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I believe the entire sentence should be removed. The single reference to the fringe view of "positive," from the Kitahara book, reads: "For example, gaijin literally means a "person from outside," namely a foreigner, and that means "Caucasian." To describe a Japanese in this manner is a compliment to him or her." Just look at what Kitahara has written. In this case, "gaijin" is clearly being used to refer to Japanese, ergo ironically. The source isn't relevant.

Hey ~imagine an edit, in the lead of the article for dogs, which added the following sentence: "Dogs are regarded by some as liquid, reflecting the heavy falling rain to which they are often compared." I'll bet a determined Wikilawyering editor could meticulously source dozens of instances of the phrase "it's raining cats and dogs" to support the statement.

It's ridiculous, 211.30.161.222, why don't you go ahead and remove the sentence. cheers! RomaC (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is the positive interpretation "clearly fringe"? Why is it "clearly more fringe than the negative aspects"? I just don't see it, based on the sources found so far. The lead is supposed to summarize the article and the article has many highly reliable, academic sources suggesting that Gaijin can and has been used in an admiring way, well as the opposite, of course. Not all the references supporting the statement are in the lead, as they are not required there, but could be added if required. --Slp1 (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think "sources found so far" sums it up. We don't find what we aren't looking for, and I'm not so keen to engage in a source-tally contest with driven editors. cheers! RomaC (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent edit removing details of the neutral and positive interpretations of the word and leaving only the negative versions. The lead needs to summarize the text, per WP:LEAD, and the text there, cited to reliable sources, clearly indicates that interpretations vary. If you wish to argue that the positive and neutral interpretation are fringe, then do the research to prove it please. So far, I with absolutely no axe to grind in this issue, and the editor who actually added most of the citations for the negative interpretations, do not believe that it is by any means proved that the positive or neutral views are fringe. Slp1 (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Lead is now short, concise, and accurately reflects the BALANCE of the sources, i.e that the term is avoided in favor of other terms due to it's somewhat politically incorrect nature. The bulk of the article then gives the case for and against the positive v negative. 121.79.1.46 (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, read WP:LEAD, it must summarize the text, and yours does not. I will give you a few days to provide citations to show that the negative interpretation is the dominant view, but if not, I will replace the text you have deleted.Slp1 (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been shown that the term is negative and is avoided by media. Can someone here provide a Japanese mainstream media source where the word is used as a neutral descriptor? That's what I'm waiting to see. cheers RomaC (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's do this another way Slp1; YOU have one week to come up with the above, and if not, i will remove the text from the article about the term being positive (it's fringe at best, as others have pointed out) thus the lead as it currently stands, will be fine. Agreed? 121.79.1.46 (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi 121.79.1.46. Why would you threaten to delete the 9 or 10 reliably sourced references completely from the article with the argument that the sources are fringe when there are only roughly the same number (or less actually) suggesting a negative connotation? Can you expand on your thinking there? Is it that you have additional reliable sources (per WP:RS) that you'd like to share with Wikipedia? J Readings (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is not called "Uses of the word Gaijin in the media". If it was, then Roma's and 121's suggestion about would would make sense. No, this article is about the general concept of Gaijin historically, etymologically, and in terms in usage generally. Reliably sources clearly indicate that the tone/meaning of the word is disputed. Per WP policy the article must be of neutral point of view and we must per WP:LEAD give a summary of the text in the lead, and include any controversies. You appear to be arguing that the negative interpretation is the main one, and thus the only one that needs mentioning in the lead of the article. I second JR's request that you find reliable sources to back up your claim. To be honest, I did a fairly exhaustive search of this issue, with no preconceptions about anything, and I don't think you will find that the sources support your point of view, but you may have access to other books, journals etc that I did not. Threatening to delete information sourced from multiple well-established mainstream publishers because you think their views are "fringe" is inappropriate and actually doing it would likely be called vandalism around here, so I suggest you don't pursue this route.Slp1 (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Slp1. Yes, I'm aware of what this article is called, thank you, I know it's called "Gaijin" and not "Uses of the word Gaijin in the media" or even "A Japologist's fringe view of the word Gaijin." If it were the latter, then the source for "positive," Michio Kitahara might be relevant. Or maybe not, as Kitahara is not even talking about the meaning of the word Gaijin, but about an ironic use of the word to refer to Japanese. This has been pointed out to some of the editors here, and ignored. Star witness Kitahara, incidentally, regards all non-Japanese as "Caucasian" and has published a book blaming Caucasian racism for Japan's attack against Pearl Harbor. Sounds fairly fringe to me, I really would prefer to see a Japanese mainstream media source that uses "Gaijin" as a neutral descriptor. This has also been pointed out to some of the editors here, and ignored. cheers! RomaC (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed that I did not ignore your comment. I responded above, pointing out that there are in fact multiple references for the neutral/positive interpretation. And in fact here is another one [34] to add to the other nine listed in the main body of the article text. Citations are not actually required in the lead, (see [35] for details) but they can certainly all be added if you wish. Your desire for a mainstream Japanese media source that uses gaijin as a neutral descriptor would be a classic example of original research, in addition to being a rather narrow view of the issue, since you agree that that this is article is the word/concept Gaijin, not about how the Japanese media uses the word.

To me, the problem with this seemingly endless dispute is that it is impossible to write about the more interesting, subtler parts of Gaijin and the Gaijin experience. Take a look at this encyclopedia article [36] and how much richer it is in terms of content and scope. I really like the way that it sees exclusion (negative) and exclusivity (positive) as being flip sides of the same coin, with exclusivity/exclusion experienced to different degrees by different groups of Gaijins. I also think something about Millie Creighton's work on the positive/negative representations of gaijins in advertising would be useful.[37] But before we can go there, we have to get past the idea that there is one 'accurate' view of Gaijin(s) and how they are seen. Clearly there are different views and all the notable ones need to be included in the article and in the lead. Cheers to you too! --Slp1 (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I smell some ownership issues here, but anyways... wading through this discussion and the archives i can't help but think that some of the ownership editors are pushing their POV by excluding some sources etc... but, my humble suggestion is that as it appears there is more evidence of the NEGATIVE side of the term Gaijin (weather the ownership editors agree or not) maybe the order in which they appear in the could be reversed? how about putting the negative stuff first, then the line about the positive / neutral stuff? maybe that's a half-way-house that editors such as RomaC and others could live with? 210.23.146.66 (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Slp1; just re-reading your comments to RomaC - how is the request for mainstream sources of the positive aspects of the term any different to previous editors rejecting 'fringe' sources? it seems to me as if you are missing the point: if it is OK for some editors to include items that others consider 'fringe', why don't you and JReading allow other soures that YOU consider fringe? seems like a bit of a double standard. Not wanting to be insulting, just pointing out the inconsistency (as i see it). 210.23.146.66 (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi 210.23.146.66, I've argued exactly the same thing here. Still, this Kitahara fellow, who is obviously a flake, continues to be used to present the ridiculous assertion that "gaijin" is somehow a "positive" term; while one if Japan's leading writers on the subject, Debito Arudo has been shut out. So hang in there, maybe eventually an accurate article will emerge. RomaC (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there 210.23.146.66, RomaC and others - agree that one person's 'activist' is another person's 'sage authority'. I totally agree with the sentiments expressed - it appears that Slp1 and others fail to understand WP:Consensus... and i will quote from it: "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and changes are sometimes reasonable". Simply sitting on the article and reverting changes you don't like doesn't mean there is consensus. Dismissing OR Asserting that a source is / isn't 'mainstream' doesn't make it so either. So where to? I agree with comments further up the page; the negative aspects should take precedence in order of appearance in the lead as a starting point. Also - where is the controversy section? it appears on the to-do-list but hasn't even been drafted yet. 121.79.1.46 (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, glad to see i got a reaction from MY comments and challenge to Slp1, not that i would have vandalised the article that way, it was a deliberate ploy to get a reaction from the self-proclaimed guardians of the article. As i said above, simply reverting changes that a couple of editors don't like doesn't equal consensus. I think the discussion page alone shows that the number of editors that support the negative aspects being the dominant view expressed in the article and lead is higher than that of the opposing view, hence the article should be re-worked accordingly. 121.79.1.46 (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's time to call a community wide RfC on this article--that's where uninvolved editors are asked to comment on an article after the notice is posted at various official venues. That's the first avenue for dispute resolution. If that doesn't provide outside editors to the discussion or sufficient feedback, a second option is to appear before a mediation committee or something similar to resolve the issue. I've been swamped with work and I've put off adding the dictionaries and other sources, but it looks like that should also be done soon. Regards, J Readings (talk) 06:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, regarding Debito Arudou's unpublished e-mail posted to a chat forum 10 years ago, I agree that it's also something on which the wider community should comment. The fact that Arudou never wanted to (or couldn't) publish his post anywhere and that journalists never wrote about Arudou's e-mail to the Dead Fukuzawa Society on that subject lets us infer that it hasn't provoked much (any?) interest. But, yes, you're right: let uninvolved established editors on Wikipedia comment on that, too. J Readings (talk) 07:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

How about this: "In recent times, the word Gaijin has become regarded as exclusionary[2] or derogatory[3][4][5] and thus offensive.[6] The term has become politically incorrect and is avoided now by most Japanese television broadcasters. However, others argue that Gaijin is regarded as a positive term, reflecting the status of Caucasian foreigners to which it is frequently applied. This divergence is often a source of controversy" (obviously need a source for the last sentence). What do you all think? 121.79.1.46 (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi 121.79.1.46 and thanks for your open mind and flexible approach on this. I agree that something like you wrote has potential, and I want to raise several points. First, Kitahara is a flake, yet the "positive" interpretation rests in large part on his writing -- and even then it is being twisted out of context as he is speaking of an ironic use of the word to refer to Japanese. Similarly, other tenuous sources for "positive" relate for example, to the US auto industry. While some "positive" sources suggest the Japanese have idolized white westerners, they do not relate to the word "gaijin" itself. So while this "positive" view could be in the article it's a real stretch to put it in the lead. Second, the question of whether "gaijin" applies to all non-Japanese, or only to those with white skin, that should be better addressed in the article. This opens the nationality/ethnicity debate, where Debito Arudo for example was not allowed entrance to a bathhouse because he was considered a "gaijin" even though he is a Japanese citizen. Last, in the absence of a single example of "gaijin" being used as a neutral descriptor in Japanese mainstream media, I think we can change "is avoided now by most Japanese television broadcasters" to read "is avoided by Japanese mainstream media." cheers! RomaC (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, if no other editors object within say, a fortnight, then I propose to ammend the lead us written above in my suggestion plus your (RomaC)'s feedback. 121.79.1.46 (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that a full draft lead be placed on the talk page first with a solid explanation as to why only the negative view is highlighted in the lead over the neutral and the positive definitions (being very mindful of NPOV and NOR), why language is specifically chosen such as "regarded" in one description but "argued" in another (being mindful of WP:AVOID), that original research is avoided at all costs (especially the notion that the currently sourced sentence identifying Japanese television broadcasters (emphasis on the word "broadcasters") should now be replaced with the unsourced sweeping claim that it is "avoided by Japanese mainstream media" (what's the reliable source for that?) -- and, finally, all of it being faithful to WP:LEAD which emphasizes that "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article." Currently, the lead is not an "concise overview of the article." To his credit, I notice that 121.79.1.46 is a editor who is reading The Community's policies and guidelines and is trying to write a balanced (at least I hope he is) encyclopedia article based on reliable sources (see WP:RS), so it's likely to be constructive in building consensus and good for the project over all. In good faith, J Readings (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, you can add my objection to your proposal too. Like J Readings I would like to know:

• Exactly how it is "real stretch" (to quote RomaC) to include the very clear, very well-sourced, positive and neutral intepretations in the Lead, when WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD would indicate that they must be there given that they are in the text?
• Exactly how does this [38], and this [39] and this [40] and this [41] , "not relate to the word "gaijin" itself" as RomaC claims above?
• Why has any mention of the word being "neutral" in tone has been deleted in the lead proposed above, despite the fact that it is well-sourced in the text?
• Why should the "negative" intepretation should go first, when from a historical perspective it is clear that the "positive" and "neutral" versions came earlier, and the "negative" interpretations came later?
• How does RomaC's piece of original research "in the absence of a single example of "gaijin" being used as a neutral descriptor in Japanese mainstream media, I think we can change "is avoided now by most Japanese television broadcasters" to read "is avoided by Japanese mainstream media" comply with WP's policies on verifiability and No original research? [42] Note how the source cited says "most broadcasters".
• Why exactly would Michio Kitahara, who has a very long publication record in scholarly sources, and whose books are published by university presses [43], be considered "a flake"[44] and the citation from the book disregarded?
• Exactly how could a forum posting published on Debito Arudou's activist website [45] be a reliable source and apparently trump other scholarly works?
• Where did anybody claim to be a "guardian of the article" as this post claims [46]?

You have had weeks now since I asked you to produce reliable sources to justify that the "negative view" of the word is the principal one, and that the "positive/neutral" view is fringe (and therefore should not be in the lead)[47] but to date none of you arguing this position have produced any reliable sources at all. Instead there are unsubstantiated allegations of ownership and point of view pushing [48][49]as well as admitted troll-like behaviour by 121.79.1.46, [50][51] straw men arguments [52] and the like. I'm tired of this. Time for the opinions of other independent editors. Slp1 (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Slp1; you still haven't shown reliable sources to justify that the "positive / neutral view" of the word is the principal one, and that the "negative" view is fringe (and therefore should not be given more weight) you've had weeks as well.... 124.254.121.189 (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly have I argued that the ""positive / neutral view" of the word is the principal one, and that the "negative" view is fringe"? Please provide a diff to support your claim or retract it. --Slp1 (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Here you go:

"I don't believe that it is appropriate to use the word derogatory (unqualified in any way) in the lead when the majority of verifiable sources qualify their use of the word 14:12, 18 February 2008"

As discussed above, it appears other editors don't agree with some of your sources 'qualifying' the term.

"...something about the "controversy" belongs in the lead, and that means including that some people consider it offensive. I have zero problem with that remaining in the lead. What I do have a problem with is adding the word 'derogatory' to the lead, because I do not think it is an accurate reflection of the majority opinion among sources who say it is derogatory to some degree 12:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)"

Here you are placing your opinion (NPOV anyone?) by viewing sources that say derogatory to some degree is not the same as 'derogatory' - step back and think for a moment. What does the degree matter? if the word is derogatory, it is, regardless of degree, so why did you argue here against it being in the lead? i see this as clear evidence of your bias against the negative view.

"Why is the positive interpretation "clearly fringe"? Why is it "clearly more fringe than the negative aspects"? I just don't see it, based on the sources found so far. 11:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)"

Again, here you are stating your view on the sources. Others have a different view. The total sum of your behavior, words on the talk page, history in reverting edits etc leads me to conclude that you are indeed supporting, through your actions, the positive / neutral view as the principle one. This is best demonstrated by your previous debates with other editors over the derogatory aspect.

Now, getting back to business, what I suggest, as a compromise, for the lead is this:

"In recent times, the word Gaijin has become regarded as exclusionary or derogatory and thus offensive. The term has become politically incorrect and is avoided now by most Japanese television broadcasters. However, others maintain that Gaijin is a positive term, reflecting the status of Caucasian foreigners to which it is applied"

INMHO, this gives a nice even keel to the lead, reflects the sources, is short, is concise and gets to the point. I still suggest we also add (with an appropriate source):

"This divergence between the negative and positive views is often a source of controversy"

How does that sound? and Slp1; don't take anything personally, but you do seem to have a habit of reverting edits that are sourced, and ignoring other editors comments, questions and discussion and simply pushing ahead with your own interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Just a suggestion, take a good look at the history and you'll see a ton of questions and points raised by RomaC (especially, but others as well) that you have simply ignored. That, to me, smacks of ownership and a air of arrogance. I'll let you go through the history and pick them up yourself. In the mean-time, I suggest we move forward on the lead. 124.254.121.189 (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you actually answer my question: where did I say ""positive / neutral view" of the word is the principal one, and that the "negative" view is fringe"?". None of quotes above do the deed: in fact I over and over again accept that both aspects need to be in the lead, and never calling either "fringe" or suggesting one interpretation be removed from the lead as you and RomaC have done repeatedly.[53][54][55] [56] And note the discussion about derogatory comes from February and the word "derogatory" has been in the lead since March [57], and that it was actually me who added the text about the word having negative connotations to some (as well as the references to support them).[58]. I will leave other editors to judge who is doing the POV pushing here.

Your last post is full of more unsubstantiated allegations about me and my editing. Simply repeating them doesn't make them any truer. But if perhaps they boil down to the fact that I "push ahead with [my] intepretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines" then I take this as a compliment, since as an administrator it is part of my job to make sure this article complies with them. If you really think I have misinterpreted any policies/guidelines then you can check it out at any noticeboard you fancy WP:RSN, WP:FTN,WP:NPOVN or make a complaint here WP:AN.

My problems with your text is noted above in the questions asked above. Here what the text used to say before you deleted the first sentence.[59]

Gaijin is regarded by some as a neutral or positive term, reflecting the status of Caucasian foreigners to which it is frequently applied.[2][3] In recent times, the word has become regarded by some as exclusionary[4] or derogatory[5][6][7] and thus offensive.[8] The term has become politically incorrect and is avoided now by most Japanese television broadcasters.[9]

In your new version, why has the sourced view of "neutral" been left out? Why reverse the order of positive/neutral and negative versions when historically the sources suggest that the positive/neutral comes earlier? How do you justify the removal of "regarded by some" from the sentence "the word Gaijin has become regarded as exclusionary or derogatory and thus offensive" when it is clear from RS that it is not a universal opinion that the word is exclusionary etc? Why have you removed "frequently" from "to "whom it is frequently applied" when the sources clearly suggest that "Gaijin" is not just used with Causausian foreigners? These changes do not reflect the article text, per WP:LEAD. And, as you note, this statement "This divergence between the negative and positive views is often a source of controversy" is totally unsourced (and not in the text) and cannot go in until it is.

I appreciate that you are in editing mode and appear to be willing to compromise. Perhaps we can try from a different starting point. Can you explain what was wrong with the old LEAD? You appear to recognize now that the positive/neutral interpretation needs to be included there now, so what else is problematic to you about the original version? --Slp1 (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a great deal of respect for User:Slp1. Just looking at her edit history across Wikipedia, it's clear that she has both a strong understanding of policy and a great love for doing real research to benefit the project. But you don't have to take my word for it, ask the other 100 or so established editors who unanimously voted for her to become an administrator. I'm really disappointed that a handful of anonymous IPs who are obviously new to the project and don't know much about Wikipedia culture yet are picking up some really bad (and unwelcome) habits. Comment on content, not on the contributor. That's the policy (see WP:ATTACK). We should all try to live by it, no matter how heated things sometimes get. There's no reason to personalize this issue by calling someone "arrogant", assuming bad faith of other editors, or accusing someone of ownership--among other things. That's inappropriate. If there's real reliable research out there, we should all be thinking about the content. If you disagree, Slp1's absolutely right: take it to the various noticeboards. The fact that the people complaining the loudest about "ownership" but haven't done anything about it suggests that they're not too keen on (and confident about) involving independent, experienced editors.

Speaking of content, I still would like a solid explanation as to why the lead does not reflect the "neutral" and "positive" interpretations. Currently, it's a violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. WP:NPOV, in particular, is not being addressed. I was quite happy to see User:Slp1 do a lot of research on this article. She was the one who found the reliable sources documenting the "negative" interpretations by some authors. (NB: I wasn't aware of Google Books until she introduced it to me. Great site, Google Books!) I did not object at all to adding the newly found sources for the "negative", because they finally conformed with our reliable source guidelines and -- more importantly -- her wording in the article was appropriate. She was not engaging in original research or pushing agendas.

One last thing, the request for "neutral" sources of the word is just plain odd. 20 verifiable dictionary entries (Japanese and Western) all from different reliable publishers defined gaijin as a neutral expression in the postwar period. I know we're accepting dictionaries here because (1) the consensus on the noticeboard allows them and (2) some of the same people pushing only the negative POV clearly demanded that the MIT dictionary, for example, had to be included in the article. If gaijin was considered derogatory, offensive or "negative" AT THE TIME (emphasis on that), the Japanese and Western dictionaries would define them as such as they clearly had with -- for example -- 'kettou' (a Japanese derogatory word for foreigner) or "nigger" (the English derogatory word for African). Is there any reason to believe that these multiple dictionaries are "fringe"? No. Indeed, this point has been corroborated and endorsed by multiple Japanese-speaking editors in these talk pages, both Western and Japanese native-speaker. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume that the people asking either don't read Japanese (or English?) or were not aware of the Japanese and Western dictionaries (see archives). That's my good faith interpretation of what's happening here. I hope we can re-edit the lead now to reflect all three verifiable interpretations which are clearly shown in the article text. J Readings (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As a Japanese, I can tell you that the word "gaijin" is used in positive context, especially when we watching American movies or Western music video. In such cases, gaijin include black thanks to people such as Will Smith, Micale Jackson, Denzel Washington, and most recently Barrack Obama. The most typical expression was "Gaijin kakkoii". However, it is clear that the word gaijin itself is neutral. It is usage which is positive. So this change nothing about the established edit which state that the term, gaijin, aquired the negative connotation due to frequent usage of the word in discriminatory context. Why not mention that gaijin "can" be used in positive context such as "gaijin-san" or "gaijin kakkoii (in reference to movie or music video)". Vapour (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Very, very sensible suggestion Vapour. I agree. 220.239.182.222 (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, Vapour, and glad you agree that there are positive/neutral and negative contexts to this word, 220 et al. Unfortunately, unless we have a reliable source for mentioning "that gaijin "can" be used in positive context such as "gaijin-san" or "gaijin kakkoii (in reference to movie or music video)", it is Original research and as such cannot be used.--Slp1 (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem, if a source says it is used in positive/negative/neutral ways, that's enough - we don't need to have an exact quote that says "can be be used...." (unless referring to the other words following it) that's not OR, just common sense INMHO 220.239.182.222 (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good, and sorry for misunderstanding you. As a result of 220, Vapour, and J Readings' comments, and also having waited about 3 weeks for sources that suggest that the "positive/neutral" interpretation is so fringe that it doesn't deserve a place in the lead, I have restored the previous text that includes this intepretation, along with some added citations, (though the bulk of them are still just in the text.)Slp1 (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything approaching consensus for restoring the controversial lead. One of the commentators is an involved editor, one offers a personal opinion, and the third appeals to "common sense." It is not acceptable to apply different standards to different positions.

Reading through these sources once again, I still don't find any them stating "gaijin" is a positive word for foreigners. Here are the sources and what they actually say:

Buckley: "[gaijin] carries strong negative connotations of exclusion"

Lie: passage refers to the status of some westerners, not to the word

Befu: dead link

Kitahara: refers to the word as applied ironically to Japanese.

Please show how each of these sources say the word "gaijin" is a "positive" term for a foreigner.

Reverting. cheers RomaC (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Roma C said: I can't see anything approaching consensus for restoring the controversial lead. I can't see anything approaching consensus for your edit either. In fact I note that all the editors recently commenting, 220, Vapour, J Readings, me, and even 124 etc, agreeing that we need a lead including the positive/neutral aspects.
• Roma C said: One of the commentators is an involved editor Huh??? How does being "involved" disqualify anyone from participating in this discussion?
• Roma C said: one offers a personal opinion, and the third appeals to "common sense." May I ask how these were different from your pronouncements that the positive aspects are "clearly fringe", with zero research to back you up?[60]
• The sources about positive meaning: here at last, something to chew on. But recall that this article is about Gaijin, the concept, not a dictionary definition. Remember too that this in not about westerners being called Gaijin, but about the word/concept Gaijin in the general sense. It is clear from multiple, multiple sources that the idea Gaijin has both positive, neutral and negative connotations, and this is frankly most elegantly expressed by the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Japanese Culture by Sandra Buckley [61] which in your revert you deleted as a reference for both the positive AND negative sides of the word. She does indeed say "[gaijin] carries strong negative connotations of exclusion", but immediately afterwards notes "Exclusion and exclusivity are, however, often two sides of the same coin in Japan, where the separate status attributed to gaijin can also bring many benefits: higher salaries, expatriate living conditions, a veneration of foreignness sometimes bordering on adulation, etc".

• Lie: "passage refers to the status of some westerners, not to the word" No, it talks about what the term "Gaijin" referred to in post-world WWII. Read in detail. If the Japanese are middle-class, and the new foreign workers, who are the upper class? In short, the old foreigners (gaijin) assume the role of the upper class. Gaijin (outsiders) in post-Second World Japan almost invariably referred to white North Americans and Europeans. Although Europeans and Americans may have low educational attainment and low occupational status in their own countries, they are almost inevitably regarded as superior to the Japanese.
• Befu: dead link Here it is, then. "In the generic sense, [Gaijin] refers to all foreigners; but in a more restricted sense it designates only Caucasians - that is, those foreigners who are worthy of admiration in some respects"
• Kitahara: refers to the word as applied ironically to Japanese. Why does that mean it is not important for this article? This is an article about the concept of Gaijin, not "How the word Gaijin is applied to foreigners" Here Kitihara shows that the word "Gaijin" is used as a compliment, as a positive word (just as Vapour noted in some original research above). "For example, gaijin literally means a “person from outside,” namely a foreigner, and that means “Caucasian.” To describe a Japanese in this manner is a compliment to him or her. To be “similar to a foreigner” (gaijin-no youna) means to be similar to a westerner, and this too, is a compliment. When such expressions are used to describe facial features, the implication is that the face is similar to a western face, and this is also a compliment."
• And then there is also the Columbia University Press book that calls the term "Gaijin" a euphemism for Westerners,[62], and Meredith Stuart's Nihonsense that states that the term used to connote "awe and respect".

Having said that, I agree that this article needs improving: as I have said before, the current version is extremely weak compared to Buckley's article much richer and more interesting article. [63] This richness, including different kinds of status attributed to Gaijin in Japan is very, very well-sourced from multiple academic sources. The sentence you deleted "Gaijin is regarded by some as a neutral or positive term, reflecting the status of Caucasian foreigners to which it is frequently applied", is also well-sourced, not just by the above refs, but from the many others in the text of the article. You must stop deleting this well-referenced sentence (which must be included per WP:Lead and WP:NPOV) with no consensus. Let's get on with improving the article. There is plenty to do. --Slp1 (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Slp1 I will agree with you that the article could be improved. But the persistent POV pushing of the "'gaijin' as positive" remains a stumbling block. The sources above do not relate to the term "gaijin." They either relate to foreigners' work or lifestyles and happen to use the term (in some cases after noting that "gaijin" carries negative connotations); or else they relate to the term being used to refer to something other than non-Japanese people (Japanese people or the US auto industry).

I would be delighted to see the article develop -- but not with a premise built on tenuous and/or irrelevant sources.

Again, I hold up Debito Arudo. A bilingual naturalized Japanese, Arudo is an associate professor at a Japanese University who has published books specifically relating to Japanese-gaikokugin issues. Arudo has lectured on these issues at the International Christian University, Waseda University, Tokai University, Sapporo International University, Shiga University, Tokyo University, University of Washington at Seattle, University of British Columbia, Thompson Rivers University, Louisiana State University, Columbia University School of Law and the Foreign Correspondents' Club Japan.

Verifiably, Arudo has written an essay titled "'Gaijin' is in fact a racist word". But wikilawyering has continuously kept this fact hidden -- indeed also missing from the article is any mention whatsoever of Debito Arudo.

Wiki's first rule is ignore all rules. It's a simple one: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

Pretending that Arudo does not exist stops us from improving this article and goes against the spirit of the Wikipedia project. cheers RomaC (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

But they do refer to the term/concept "Gaijin", over and over again. If you truly believe that these academic texts are "tenuous and/or irrelevant sources" then go the the reliable sources noticeboard and make your case there. And while you are at it, you can ask for independent feedback on whether Debito Arudo's webpost is concerned a reliable source. Maybe it is. But personally I don't believe that his opinion on this subject is notable (or that it would actually improve WP as IAR requires): since nobody else (independent book, newspaper, etc) seems to have noticed his pronouncement that Gaijin is a racist word, I fail to see why WP would include it. And it appears that other editors agree about that this approach to Arudo is reasonable.[64]. But maybe you'll get a different answer at WP:RSN. Go ahead and ask.--Slp1 (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume GOOD faith from the established editors debating the positive aspects. I note that previously Thomas Dilion had been used "s of the term, was deleted by someone, then when reinserted others editors noted that the complete article also refers to the negative and racial aspects (see up the talk page) - an interesting omission corrected; fortunately. Now, this is where the good faith comes in - missing the negative aspects in a reference is one thing, doing it again make me think that perhaps there is a POV push for the positive aspect.

Here's why: SLP1 re-inserted a reference from “The Discourse of Japaneseness” (reference 3) as supporting the positive aspects of the term Gaijin, which it does refer too in passing on a number of pages. But, again, the same source also supports the negative aspects on page 209-210 are related. Another omission? Then we have the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Japanese Culture (reference 2); again used to support the supposed positive aspects of the term, and guess what? while it does mention higher salaries and media veneration, it also mentions racial slurs, derogatory aspects, discrimination, frustration at the term by the foreign population, negative sterotypes of gaijin on local current affairs shows (pg516) and other clearly NEGATIVE aspects of the term. WHOA - hold up, now a third source mis-applied? Well, i'm going to act in good faith and assume that this was ANOTHER oversight, because yet again, the source supports the negative view making two so far from the line in the lead that talks about the positive and neutral aspects.

So that's two of the three sources held up to support the positive case that also support the negative case. Whilst i'm fine for them to be included, it's clear to me that the negative aspects of the term are clearly dominant, and thus the lead should be amended as per RomaC's suggestion - which i shall shortly undertake. The negative aspects are well sourced (we now have another two sources to add!) and seem to outweigh the positive; weather the positive is fringe or not is, i guess, a value judgment. Likewise I will make a judgment that the oversight of the negative aspects contained in those two sources mentioned previously was an oversight and not a POV push. I agree wholeheartedly with RomaC about Arudo's work - although he is labelled an activist by some, he is also everything that RomaC mentioned as well, and thus an authority. This would lend support to the inclusion of a 'racist' label if additional sources can be found, and I would also suggest that the term has now clearly been identified as a pejorative term. I will edit the lead as per the suggestion by RomaC, using the two sources in it. Hopefully this will be a compromise we can all live with. 124.254.121.189 (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... i'm crap with html / GFDL, can someone please assist in cleaning up my edit so that the reference list is correct? you'll note that i haven't deleted any references by the way SLP1, for the record. All still there, just applied more appropriately. 124.254.121.189 (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's really incredible: claim that the editor who found and added all the citations about the pejorative aspect is POV pushing in the opposite direction. Then that the racist label should be added only if additional sources can be found but immediately add a racial slur category tag yourself. Slp1 (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

SLP1; thanks for cleaning up my edits, it is appreciated. I had tried to insert a new quotes (from different pages) into two of the references you had previously used, so thanks for the help. Just to clarify, i did take things in good faith. I know that in real life I often get excited when examining (what appears at first glance) to be ratio decidendi, only to realize later that it was infact obiter instead, and hence really not worth getting excited over. It's easy to miss things, so I wasn't trying to put down your research attempts, only highlighting that those sources contain a much larger picture of Gaijin than what they had originally be applied too. See my comments later down the page, hope we can work on making this a better article. 124.254.121.189 (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for this. I do think that slowing down is good idea, because rushing to edits like this is quite unhelpful. I would in fact take it as a great gesture of good faith if you would strike out most of your comments above, because they are mostly just plain wrong based on the evidence, I am happy to say.

• Dillon was first used as a negative reference [65] without acknowledging that he also included a more positive interpretation (later included).
• The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Japanese Culture: I actually added to the article as a reference to both the positive and negative side on exactly the same edit[66]
• The "Lie" book: the bits you found are not by Lie actually, and it's good that you have access to those pages on googlebooks, because I don't.

Like I said, I understand you are assuming good faith, but it would still mean a lot to be if you could retract the above by striking it out. It would also us to go forward as a fresh start without baggage.Slp1 (talk) 02:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

SLP1; Re: Thomas Dilion: where was it originally used to support both negative and positive? i look pretty closely and could only find it being used to support the positive until editor 203.129.53.227 posted a direct quote from it re: the negatives? is this incorrect? Have struck out the other part. 124.254.121.189 (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I said it was originally used to support negative only later was the positive, not the other way around. It was not "to support the supposed positive aspect" as you claimed. Look at the link I provided of an old version of the page. Reference 28. BTW It would also be nice to see you strike out more of the suggestions that "omissions" "oversight" were being made, rather than you just what you have struck out to date.--Slp1 (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

It is time for other editors to weigh in on this longstanding dispute, which began long before I began editing the article. As the archives will attest, initially the dispute was about whether the word "Gaijin" was derogatory, racist etc, and included discussion of the reliability of certain sources. After some research and when reliable sources confirming this negative interpretation were found, the body of the article and the lead were rewritten to include them. More recently, the dispute has been over whether the positive/neutral interpretation of the word should be included in the lead. This edit [67] removed a sentence indicating that some regard the word in this way. Some editors believe that this violates WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD, since the positive/neutral view is well-sourced in the body of the text and appears to be a significant view. Other editors argue that this view is "clearly more fringe", that sources for the positive view of the word are "tenuous", and suggest that we check the Japanese media to see if the word "Gaijin" is being used "as a neutral descriptor", using the results to influence lead.--Slp1 (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Whites who live in Mexico use 'gringo' in jest or among themselves, but they do not like to be called a gringo in public places. It is similar to 'nigga' in the US. People say "Jap" but I have heard Japanese do not like that. The decision is up to the people that the name is applied toward, how do whites in Japan view this word? 118.168.110.132 (talk) 07:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

"The decision is up to the people that the name is applied toward, how do whites in Japan view this word?" Really? Why focus on the hearers rather than the speakers? In any case, how do we determine either? Luckily, WP has policies to guide us verifiability and neutral point of view, which mean that we must include all the reliably sourced mainstream opinions, of which there are several in this case.Slp1 (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think most people would agree that the reason "Jap" is offensive and "Brit" is not offensive is determined by the reaction that Japanese and British people have to the respective words. But were going around in circles here again, coming to the difference between intent and received meaning. Many older people in the West until recently used "colored" or "negro" as neutral terms for blacks (or is it "African-Americans"? now?) The appropriateness of these words, as with most descriptors, is determined by the people they are applied to, no? RomaC (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course RomaC is correct. This was the point that I originally made. White-skinned americans don't get to decide whether nigga is offensive. 122.27.250.213 (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you believe that your original research is important for Wikipedia--because that's what your comments are in this context. All that we are supposed to be doing is documenting what the reliable sources say in a NPOV fashion. Both of you know this already, so why do you keep promoting original research here? It's irrelevant. J Readings (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

When gaijin is used in an way that some people may (rightly or wrongly) see as offensive, its offensiveness is better judged by third parties who specialize in this kind of thing: sociolinguists, pragmaticists, and the like. (For one thing, they're likely to have a sound theoretical model of offensiveness.) The article, which I long thought should never exist, seems to have progressed a long way toward this idea.

As for the alleged parallel between gaijin and terms used by "whites" about "blacks" in the US, perhaps RomaC can find a sociolinguist, pragmaticist or similar drawing this parallel in a convincing way. I'd be interested to see it.

Meanwhile, the alleged parallel seems partial at best to me (as a non-specialist). For "negro", etc., the talk would have been in the first language of both the speaker(s) and hearer(s); however, the allegedly offensive uses of gaijin are I think prototypically made within Japanese-language contexts by native speakers of Japanese to non-native speakers (or non-speakers) of Japanese. Still, I'm open to informed research on this: sociolinguistics, etc., not newspaper columns or bloggery. -- Hoary (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• I checked the sources used to support the argument that gaijin can be used neutrally or positively and I did find them to be tenuous. One mentions that in the past that the word referred to the affluence of Europeans, but it doesn't specifically state that this applies exactly to the word gaijin or also to gaikokujin. The other sources refer to the term indirectly and one of them is an opinion column. In spite of this, I think it can still be mentioned in the intro with a sentence along the lines of, "Most modern commentators feel that that the word is now primarily negative in connotation, but some observers indicate that the word can also be used neutrally or even as a complement." This will weigh the intro equally to how it is discussed in the main text. I've lived in Japan off-and-on for a total of about seven years now so if anyone wants to discuss with me my own experiences with this word please ask me on my user talk page, because my personal research on it isn't appropriate here. Cla68 (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Cla68 I think "Most modern commentators feel that that the word is now primarily negative in connotation, but some observers indicate that the word can also be used neutrally or even as a complement." could be a fair and reasonable compromise. RomaC (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am grateful to get other opinions in here, and I found Hoary's and Cla68's comments useful and something out of a way out of an impasse. Unfortunately, I can't agree with the lead suggestion in full. Who says that "most" modern commentators feel that the word...? Isn't that original research to say most unless we can find an analysis that says so? I also think that people are thinking too much about the word as in a dictionary definition, and not thinking about the full context of the idea of foreigners (Gaijin) in Japan. If this is just going to be a dictionary definition, then it needs to be transwikied out of here. If it is going to be a full, rich article about Gaijin, then this article needs to include the idea that there being a Gaijin has some advantages as well as disadvantages, and that people view Westerners as role models as well as strange non-Japanese. I keep urging people to look at this article [68] and see how both sides of the experience are presented in an integrated way. I think some are getting fixated on the usage aspect, and not focussing even on the "whole" gaijin experience including the history of this, which likely includes the aspects that Cla68 felt were tenuous above. This is not a dictionary definition, and we don't want it to be. If we can't get beyond this etymology and usage approach then maybe Hoary has it right, and this article should not exist. Slp1 (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head SLP1; this article could be so much more! Undoubtedly there are benefits go with BEING gaijin, the same as there are definite negatives - racism, discrimination and so forth. I'd be more than happy to assist in helping turn this article into a bigger one on the whole GAIJIN experience - what it means to be gaijin, the good, bad, beautiful and ugly. A major problem with the current article is the tension between those that want to keep it like a dictionary and seem to push certain POV's based on number of sources, rather than expanding a little. If we go down the path you are suggesting, we can then bring in a whole bunch of their material - essentially anything related to being a foreigner in Japan, as that is what a Gaijin is. My suggestion is to have a concise section about the strict linguistic meaning, then the much larger and richer sections on: current usage, life as gaijin in japan, famous gaijin living in japan, legal issues - just to name a few. Maybe something positive can come out of all of this, lets hope so! 124.254.121.189 (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Workspace for new Gaijin Article Structure

I'd like to suggest the following be included:

Strict dictionary definition Etymology and history Current Usage and Controversy (this is where Arudo stuff might be useful) Life as a Gaijin in Japan (including discrimination, privileges, ability to break cultural norms, racism, migration related) Non-Caucasian Gaijin Depiction of Gaijin in WW2 Japanese government materials Use of the term Gaijin beyond Japan

Feel free to add your suggestions so we can move on making the article richer. In the meantime, i have restored the Racial Slur and Pejorative term labels to the article as, although i think we are getting near to agreeing that there is MORE to the word Gaijin than just this, the term IS still used as a slur and is a pejorative term, hence the labels are appropriate. For more ideas on how we expand the usage section, take a look at the [Nigger] article, the history of each country section is interesting, as is the section on literature that features the word - something that might be useful? 124.254.121.189 (talk) 02:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a good start 124, but restoring those categories is a very bad one. Neither category exists, the racist slur is entirely unsourced, and these absolutely need discussion and consensus before they are added. I have removed them. Do not replace them without getting the opinions of others here.Slp1 (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had just pointed out part of one of the sources that referred to Gaijin as a slur, no? I'll leave it in the meantime, see what others think. 124.254.121.189 (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Which reliable source says that this is a racial slur? I've looked long and hard and the evidence is not convincing at all. One source is certainly not enough in any case, as we would be giving undue weight to that opinion. I'm sure you can understand why: we also have a reliable source saying that it can be used as a compliment. Should we add a category saying that this is a complimentary word? Of course not. Slp1 (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Gaiji translated as "outsider" is disingenuous at best

Daijisen is a comprehensive Japanese dictionary and is primarily used when one need a reference to old/classical or obscure Japanese terms. For daily usage, smaller dictionary will do. Anyone who understand elementary Japanese know that gaijin=outsider is not a current usage. Moreover, the dictionary only cite classical usage pronounced as guwaijin. Gaijin=outsider edit, which most Japanese aren't even aware of, obviously slant the article for particular soapboxing POV. Unless someone from reliable souce specifically make an argument that gaijin=outsider=projetive, I'm not sure if the information is even relevant to this article, which is about gaijin=foreigner. Plus, deleting the translation of heikemonogatari as guwaijin, aside from it rewrite history of Japanese language, is against the neutrality and verifiability. The source material including Daijisen, specifically state that it is guwaijin.Vapour (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Since no one responded to my suggestion, I will make mention that gaijin as a general reference to outsider or enemy is not current. Moreover, I will rewrite classical usage as guwaijin. If anyone wish to revert guwaijin back to gaijin, please find a better source than Daijisen which shows that pronouncing 外人 as gaijin was a classical usage. Vapour (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also noticed that the citation is slightly different. The classical pronounciation "ぐわい―" is omitted for some reason. I will add more accurate citation.Vapour (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The below cite in goo which refer to Daijisen make it clear that guwaijin=outsider/enemy is an "historical" usage. http://help.goo.ne.jp/goo/article/733/

歴史的かなづかい (1) 歴史的かなづかいが見出しのかなづかいと異なるものについては、見出しのすぐ横に細字の平仮名で示した。示し方は、見出しの語構成を目安とし、異ならない部分については「―」で示した。 (2)漢字表記が二種以上あって歴史的かなづかいが異なる場合は次のように示した。 いちおう 0 ―わう 【一往】/ ―おう 【一応】 (3)小見出しとなる慣用句・ことわざなどの句項目は、行を改めて漢字仮名交じりの太字で示した。

Therefore, any edit implying that gaijin=emeny/outsider is incorrect. Vapour (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't make changes like this before achieving consensus. Your cite says that the usage of kana ("spelling") in some words is obsolete, but it doesn't say anything at all about the meaning of "guwaijin" (hell, it doesn't even mention the word!) Has Tokyo the city ceased to exist just because it's not spelled とうきゃう anymore? Are prewar sources about the city that use the form とうきゃう invalid? No, it's still the same concept, even though the spelling has changed.

Note that I'm not saying that 外人 meant the same thing in the 13th century as it does today. I'm just saying that you cannot use the spelling to argue anything about the meaning. Jpatokal (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

This section was created in JULY after my similar edit was reversed. To imply that I'm making unilateral edit is incorrect. It was my attempt at consensus which has been ignored for a long time. Vapour (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, nobody agreed with your proposal in July, so no, you don't have consensus on this. Jpatokal (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, nobody disagree for months with my proposal. :D It doesn't really matter now that you are responding. Still, few days is usually seen as enough period for a response. Vapour (talk) 08:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My points are

(1) Translation of 外人 in classical Japanese text in this article is not correctly cited as ぐわいじん(guwaijin). The original source says so indicated by "-" and "0" per its historical usage policy.

(2) Daijisen and other dictionaries cite usage of 外人 in reference to outsider/enemy only in classical texts. The above manner of citation are done when such usages are no longer current. Even in English dictionary, it is the same. If someone insist otherwise, Please cite, from ANYWHERE, a modern/current usage of gaijin in general reference to outsider or enemy.

(3) I personally find it difficult to assume a good faith when someone is insisting on an edit which is clearly in conflict with everyday usage. If someone is good enough to use a Japanese dictionary, this person clearly have some elementary fluency in Japanese. It's like me, a Japanese, cherry pick a citation of English dictionary, then argue that the word Negro is only a neutral reference to a black person. Vapour (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If I could just make a brief factual statement. I researched last year several different versions of the 平家物語 (Heikei Monogatari). It would be accurate to state that Japanese literary scholars do not agree on how 外人 should be read and defined. Here is part of what I posted to the talk page (found in Archive 6) at the time specifically on that issue:

Some versions using furigana insist, such as 日本文学義書刊禽 (1922), that 外人 should be read as ことびと (kotobito), others, like 山田(1938), say that 外人 is read as うどきひと(udokihito), whereas others still suggest that it might be read as ぐわいじん (guwaijin). All agree that the word is not read as がいじん (gaijin). Indeed, in some re-printings of 平家物語, such as the 1960 Tomikura Tokujiro version (there are others), the word 外人 does not appear at all! Rather than seeing the phrase （然るに、その恩を忘れて、外人もなき所に兵具をとゝのへ、軍兵を語らひおき、其営みの外は他事なし）we read things like (しかるに今、その恩を忘れて、同志の者たちの間で武器を調達し、軍兵を語らい集めるということに専心しているのである。) Notice how there is no reference to the word 外人, although it might be a contemporary rewording. I really don't know.

Bendono noted at the time that this disagreement in furigana wording was natural. I think he's right, but I guess what I'm suggesting is that I don't see the harm in informing the reader (with attributed footnotes) that there is disagreement among Japanese literature scholars on this particular issue by highlighting the above. After all, it's a statement of fact. In that sense, I agree with Vapour to an extent. J Readings (talk) 11:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with noting the change in the pronunciation and/or the various suggested alternatives in either the body or the footnotes. However, I don't see how this change in pronunciation can be used to imply that (to quote Vapour) "any edit implying that gaijin=emeny/outsider is incorrect." The meaning and pronunciation are unrelated. Jpatokal (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that as someone with no knowledge of Japanese, this discussion is a bit beyond me. I presume that in the past combinations of characters were associated with different spoken words? However, I do have some comments to make.

• Vapour's edit was made within the history and etymology section; I don't think repeating assertions that this is not how the word is currently used are necessary in a section that is specifically labelled as historical.
• Yahoo dictionary: I would like to develop some discussion about whether this dictionary used is a reliable source in WP terms.[69] I don't have an opinion, because I can't read much of what it says, but I think it is a reasonable question to ask given that this online dictionary is being used to bolster a couple of controversial issues in contradiction to numerous other dictionaries. In Vapour's most current edit the dictionary was being used to bolster the "offensive" interpretation, but I notice that same yahoo dictionary is also being used as the sole reference to a statement in the lead that the term refers to "foreigners and non-Japanese". Per J Readings' extensive dictionary researches in the archive 7, [70] both the inclusion of "non-Japanese" and the "offensive" interpretation is exclusive to this particular dictionary. So, is it a reliable source, and even if it is are we giving undue weight to it given what other dictionaries say? I will also add that the "non-Japanese" part makes little sense to me given that we know from other unimpeachably reliable sources that the term is applied to Japanese people (for example, Japanese returning from Brazil). [71][72][73] --Slp1 (talk) 13:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Also adding: what is Goo [74] and is this a reliable source? It is not in the article, but is being used in the argument above.--Slp1 (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(1) Do we have a consensus that Daijisen, the most authoritative dictionary in Japan, cite guwaijin as a classical "pronunciation" of 外人, and although other scholars propose various alternative, none assert gaijin as an alternative. The distinction is important, imo, because modern and historical/classical meaning and origin of gaijin is not the same.

(2) Do we have a consensus that the usage of the word gaijin meaning outsider/enemy is historical and that the current usage of gainin is exclusively in reference to foreigner?

(3) As of goo and yahoo dictionary as sources, their original source are listed in the same page and all are from well established printed English Japanese dictionary. Vapour (talk) 08:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Slp1 raised the issue of dictionaries, I guess I'll throw my two yen into the mix though I'm afraid that I'm not going to be much help on this subject. Part of the reason is that I'm at a loss as to what to do about the dictionaries. It's one of these classic cases of the more you know the less you know. In this case, the more dictionaries we consult, the more complicated it gets. Do we cite all the dictionaries (how would that look in the article)? Do we cite none of the dictionaries (then what was the point of "defining" the term)? Do we cite some of the dictionaries (if so, which dictionaries will we use)? I suspect that not many people will be happy with whichever outcome sticks, so I can see the problems arising from whichever angle.

Regarding Vapour's questions, I hesitate to say that Daijisen is the most authoritative dictionary in Japan because I wouldn't know how to justify that remark to everyone's satisfaction. At the same time, I think he might be right that the term meant something differently back then than it does today -- once again, because if the preponderance of dictionaries are any guide (see archive 7) it does seem plausible that gaijin means "foreigner" or "non-Japanese" today, but it didn't mean that during the classical period and vice versa. And before anyone gets upset, I'm not pushing for anything. I'm simply stating I don't know how we can define gaijin to the satisfaction of everyone here. Sorry, J Readings (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Vapour said "Do we have a consensus that Daijisen, the most authoritative dictionary in Japan, cite guwaijin as a classical "pronunciation" of 外人, and although other scholars propose various alternative, none assert gaijin as an alternative. The distinction is important, imo, because modern and historical/classical meaning and origin of gaijin is not the same." Can you explain the second sentence in greater detail because I may not be understanding your point? Changes in pronunciation over the centuries is a totally separate issue from the etymological derivation of a word, and cannot prove a point one way or another. Note that in English the words 'night' and 'knife' have had radical changes in pronunciation in the last few centuries but mean the same thing, whereas "manners" is pronounced the same but means something different (though related to the old meaning). I am also concerned that this is WP:OR. We would need to find somebody making this point before we can include it.

I think I would agree that the 'enemy' meaning is historical, but the 'outsider' meaning is clearly still current based on multiple sources.[75].

I agree with J Readings' concerns about dictionaries; note that we are an encyclopedia and not wikidictionary, so defining the word and trying to pin down its meaning (and etymology, frankly) is not our main goal here. I continue to wish the article could be broader and richer, like this one [76] and maybe one day I will have the time to try and make it so.--Slp1 (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(1) I went back to Japanese wkipedia. Nihon Kokugo Daijiten is the most authoritative, due to its size, comprehensiveness and the wholesale involvement of Japanese academia. Moreover, I confused Daiji"rin" with Daiji"sen". Not only that, I didn't mention about about Kojien. Most Japanese are familiar with Kojien and Daiji"rin". I always figured that Daiji"rin" has more details on etymology, hence my assertion, "the most authoritative". So my bad.

(2) Aside from that, Can we agree that gaijin is not cited as classical pronunciation in any authoritative sources, I would like to make corrects in this regard. If anyone would like to add other alternative from authoritative sources, that is fine by me. I prefer to settle this matter first and move on to more important one. Or alternatively, I could create two sub section, one for "gaijin or guwaijin" and the other for "outsider/enemy or foreigner".

Thanks for looking those up for us, Vapour. You wrote: Can we agree that gaijin is not cited as classical pronunciation in any authoritative sources. Well, let me clarify one of my comments above because I don't want anyone to get the wrong impression. I'm not suggesting original synthesis. What I would suggest is that we simply cite the relevant Japanese scholars and let the reader come to that conclusion on his or her own if need be. I take it that everyone participating so far does not have a problem at all with citing the comments by Japanese literature scholars about their different furigana readings of 外人 in the Heikei Monogatari provided that the citations are detailed and explicit. At least, that is the impression I get from reading Jpatokal, Slp1 and Vapour . I also don't have a problem with Vapour's suggested course of action on dealing with the pronunciation issue first and foremost. It's a statement of fact that Japanese scholars differ on whether 外人 was pronounced ことびと (kotobito), or うどきひと(udokihito), or ぐわいじん (guwaijin) or perhaps even something else. I wouldn't feel comfortable stating in the article that they all felt this way because that would need a reliable secondary source for such a sweeping statement and because we simply have not read all of those classical interpretations of the Heikei Monogatari. Seriously, last I checked, I counted some 10+ versions in the library-- maybe more. As for the Japanese classical dictionaries, I understand Vapour's point but I'm not sure what to think yet.J Readings (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Bad translation?

"Since the children of both Genji and Heike are here, such a gaijin is not appropriate to stay together." That doesn't make sense in English. 86.153.15.186 (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I read back a bit in the source material and edited for (hopefully) a clearer translation. RomaC (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Etymology section=original research synthesis

I don't see any reliable source cited in the section Etymology and history to establish that the contemporary use of the term "gaijin" meaning foreigner is derived from or in any way etymologically related to the ancient use of the same kanji combo meaning outsider.

I don't see the article asserting any such link -- it simply notes that a), the word 外人 was used as far back as the 13th century, and that b) the word did not mean "foreigner" in the current sense back then. That's it. Jpatokal (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Any Japanese dictionary lists the term "gaijin" as having at least two definitions: 1. (short for) foreigners and 2. outsiders. Just because "foreigners" and "outsiders" use the same kanji combo doesn't mean they are etymologically related.

This is at best an original research synthesis. --222.1.43.22 (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the article asserting that they are etymologically related. Jpatokal (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Every Japanese dictionary refer the second definition "outsider" as old Japanese by citing only classical texts. In modern Japanese, gaijin is not used in reference to outsider. Vapour (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The article does not claim that modern Japanese uses it in reference to "outsider". Jpatokal (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)