Talk:Anti-Japanese sentiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Japan (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 07:15, March 19, 2015 (JST, Heisei 27) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject East Asia (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 

"jjok" and "jok" in Korean language.[edit]

Let me reiterate my points here, since I want to clarify my arguments. A quotes from this version (Date: 24 April 2012) of the article's "Korean derogatory terms section".

... In slang meaning "pig's feet", this term is the most frequently used and strongest ethnic slur used by Koreans...

A. Literal meaning

B. Geta or Tabi

C. Sources and citations

D. Final thoughts

  1. I cannot emphasize enough that "Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors."
  2. Whoever noticed the similarity in sound between "jjok-bal" and "jok-bal", the two separate words have evolved from different origin and meaning.
  3. "jjok-bal" is originated from "jja-gae-bal", not "jok-bal". This added explanation probably started after the word's spelling have changed.
  4. Since its addition in 2005, the origin or literal meaning of the word, which falsely claimed that it's from "pig's feet", has never been challenged or discussed.
  5. The word/sentence in question is about definition of this specific word. Thus, Korean language institute dictionary's definition is most relevant and authoritative here.

--- PBJT (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I found the translation of 쪽바리 as ‘豚足’ (pig’s feet) on a Japanese website. I am very sorry if this is inaccurate; I should have been more thorough in my investigation.--Ryoske (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Ryoske, and thanks for joining the discussion. I really appreciate your comments here, and you don't need to be sorry. When I raised this question, my goal was correcting inaccurate contents, but I understand that users can make mistakes and that it is a normal process of editing. --- PBJT (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
From the information provided so far, I think PBJT's points are quite reasonable. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 08:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid PBJT's post is an original reserch. I think the user should provide RS supporting his points. Ryoske and Benlisquare, please read the thread #3. Oda Mari (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Translation error[edit]

This is my third and last attempt to convince other users and to make a consensus on the problem. And I hope anyone reading this talk page could look at the problem this way: This is a simple translation error from Korean text to English (or any other language.)

  • Anyone with basic understanding of Chinese, Japanese Kanji or Korean Hanja can tell that 足 means foot/feet.
  • Translating "足-발 (jok-bal)" to "豚足" or "pig's feet" is accurate, since the word refers to a "pig's feet dish".
    (though its literal translation would be "-足" or "pedi-foot".)
  • Translating "쪽-발 (jjok-bal)" to "豚足" or "pig's feet" is inaccurate, since "쪽 (jjok)" has its own meaning and doesn't have matching Hanja. It's more than just adding extra "j" to "jok-bal". In fact, "jjok (쪽)" alone is a commonly used word which means "page". (i.e. page 161 or 161 jjok)
  • In any case, neither "jok (足)" nor "jjok" clearly has nothing to do with pigs (豚).

I welcome anyone to point out which part of my argument is WP:OR. Otherwise, I'm going to correct the error which is simply wrong, and I think I tried my best to explain why this is the case. --- PBJT (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the question of comparing Apple and Orange. If I'm trying to convince others that apple is better than orange or vise versa, then it would be my POV or OR. But I'm trying to say that Apple and Orange are different, although both are fruits. --- PBJT (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of the paragraph relating to "21st century"[edit]

I removed the 21st century paragraph because it was ill informed and not noteworthy. Just because there were a few sickos on youtube who made comments referencing the 2011 Tōhoku tsunami disaster to anything related to 70 year old World War II issues doesn't mean it's worthy of a wikipedia entry, furthermore just because someone with a blog or publishing ability on a website sees these comments and decides to write an article about it purely shows bad journalistic and investigative qualities on their behalf. I'm going to remove it again and would kindly ask that it not be repurposed. --71.94.7.228 (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It's notable enough to be mentioned in a third party reference. It has also been covered in many other third party sources as well, further enforcing its notability. Furthermore, it's more than just "a few sickos on youtube", the number of people involved is much larger than you're portraying it as. The immaturity and irrationality of a bunch of people on the internet is a prime example of how discriminatory sentiments can occur. Remember, things like this don't necessarily have to be "mainstream" viewpoints - antisemitism still exists today, but it isn't the mainstream population that shares these sentiments. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 03:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
You don't seem to be understanding that it is simply a minority of internet trolls who used the hate of that disaster as some kind of karmic reference to paid dues for Pearl Harbor. It is not note worthy, and I suggest you take an especially pristine amount of care in re-reading the paragraph I posted in this talk section and fully understand each and every word I carefully chose to state what needed to be stated. --71.94.7.228 (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I reinstated it before I knew there was a discussion here. As Benlinsqure says, it's notable because Huffington Post decided it's notable. That's how Wikipedia works--we don't make our own decisions, we defer to reliable sources. Now, I suppose that someone could argue that it should be removed on WP:NOTNEWS or WP:UNDUE reasons...except for the fact that this actually happens all the time. It happened several times in the Olympics (before and after the Japanese soccer team played the US). It happened after the tsunami itself. Sea Shepherd and their associates raise the spectre of Japanese nationalism on occasion. And, of course, it's a key undercurrent to the rhetoric surrounding the 2012 Chinese protests. We can keep discussing the matter; I could, possibly, be persuaded...but at the moment, I think it should stand. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the Huffington Post article makes the content notable: their establishment does not have the same policies on notability that Wikipedia has, and documenting every small outbreak of anti-Japanese sentiment that is sensationalized in a major online publication would be exhausting and unnecessary. Huffington Post does take the discrimination seriously, but never suggests that it was not merely done for attention by a handful of people. If it has indeed been covered in many other third party sources as Benlisquare stated, then I recommend that be reflected in the references. The analogy to antisemitism is fair, but we don't document specific acts or outbursts of antisemitism unless they are extremely notable. My vote is for deletion. Coppaar (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, the Huffington Post source article directly references social media posts in effort to prove a non existent point that there was public acknowledgement of anti-Japanese sentiment being prevalent in any notable fraction of the public regarding the 2011 tsunami disaster. It was bad journalism to the say the least, but to take it further - it's an abhorrent journalistic source when taking in the fact that even the article says "Some people" as in, "Some people think the disaster was payback for Pearl Harbor," while then giving only a few examples of social networking comments. <BLP violation redacted by Qwyrxian>--71.94.7.228 (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Okay, 71, that last post is a WP:BLP violation--you're making negative, unsubstantiated claims about a living person (the author of the HufPost article). I've removed that portion of your comment. Don't make such comments again or you will be blocked. Second, your claims are unsourced and specious. HufPost is, generally, a reliable source. You can't just reject it because you don't like the conclusions. Coppaar, we don't require that sources have our notability requirements--all we require is that the reliable sources consider it important enough to report on. But, you are correct that it would be better if we had more sources; I won't revert to put it back in at the moment. I'll look for sources, and if I find any, re-add it with additional sources. If I don't find any, I may still consider taking this through further dispute resolution.

I've added info about the similar events following the 2012 Olympics soccer final, with 2 more references, and restored the previous part (though I rewrote it for brevity since I added other info). I believe this is sufficient evidence to show that SNS have become a new venue for anti-Japanese racist rhetoric. Note that no one is saying that it was widespread, or a majority...but no one is claiming that for many of the rest of the claims on this page. While 71 is correct that we don't want to document every minor piece of anti-Japanese racism here, if a phenomenon is widespread enough to be covered in multiple independent RS, it's important enough to be covered here. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I've had just about enough of your shithead behavior. I said nothing wrong with my comment, and my comment was only factual. If you want to debate what is and isn't worthy of a goddamned encylopedic entry, then I'm sure you're better off arguing with a wall. Shame on you for censoring and removing content of a TALK-PAGE ARTICLE COMMENT. Thankfully you can't edit or destroy the page-history, so people can see just exactly what you removed and how simple you are. For fucks sake, SNS is not a reliable source, and any news outlet that believes so intentionally delves into bad journalistic endeavors. The article is being removed, deal with it dude. Grow up and acknowledge certain facts, and I'm going to end the conversation at that because I've already spent enough time trying to use the simplest of English sentences to outline and debate this idea with full clarity, yet you still can't understand. You want a BLP violation? You've got autism you cold retarded fuck. (By the way, if you don't think a picture of an asian man along with the author's name being "Gil Asakawa" would certainly clarify that the author is indeed Asian, you're simply completely wrong in likely every regard of life itself that requires any sense of observation skills --71.94.7.228 (talk) 05:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
71 has made some valid points. However, I would propose to move the content of the "21st century" section to Anti-Japanese sentiment in the United States article as the comments on the social networks were obviously from the individuals in some U.S. regions and do not represent a national anti-Japanese sentiment. STSC (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I didn't even notice that article. I have no problem moving this information to that article, as it does seem like a better fit there (although part of me worries that the articles are too duplicative in general...but that's a much larger discussion). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the 1944 poll[edit]

Regarding this removal,, I would like to make a few points. First of all, it's inappropriate to be removing referenced content simply because it might "look bad", as this constitutes whitewashing of information.

Regarding the edit summary "polls like this are utterly meaningless. Knowing myself I'm quite sure I would have sarcastically answered that I was in favor", I'd like to strongly disagree - polls like these are quite useful at gauging public opinion and attitudes at the time. The comment "I would sarcastically answered (yes)" isn't really that helpful, since as a person of the 21st Century, you hardly share any sentiments to people who had actually lived back then, and so you cannot make such an assumption that what you would do would also be likely for people back then. Keep in mind that during that time, the general mood and anger amongst the public within the United States was significantly influenced by events such as Pearl Harbor and Bataan. Furthermore, the domestic US media was also responsible for stirring up emotions in an effort to maintain public support for the war, and this would have had a profound impact on people's opinions. It isn't far-fetched to say that this anger would be reflected in how they would respond to such polls, or even actions that people take. I'm sure you would have heard of incidents where US army soldiers sent home Japanese human skulls as souvenirs, or cases of atrocities on the Japanese home islands committed by disgruntled US soldiers after the war. Hence, the reasoning that a person of today would participate sarcastically in an opinion poll is rather moot, as it has the major flaw of making the assumption that attitudes stay static throughout time.

Finally, per WP:BRD, I'd strongly suggest that people take the time to properly discuss the issues at hand here on the talk page. --benlisquareTCE 20:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Come up with a relevant *explanation*, rather than rambling on about different things. Nobody wanted all Japanese to be "exterminated", as I'm sure you like to think Americans are evil. Not everyone is dead honest in polls. I'm sure about 10% of Americans would be "in favor" of painting the white house pink. 69.171.160.132 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
First off I think the information in the poll is useful. It talks about the discrimination towards Japanese Americans at the time. However, it should be noted that it does not reflect the general American public today which is what I think the argument is getting at. As long as you mention it as being for that particular time period I see no problem with the informations inclusion.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
No one wanted the Japanese to be exterminated. It was their expression of hatred against Japanese people, influenced by Nazi Japan. There needs to be a disclaimer. 69.171.160.132 (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
First of all seriously did you not study history. Japan were not the Nazis. Germany and most of Europe was. Secondly the wars going on don't matter. Anti-Middle Eastern sentiment today is still anti-Middle Eastern sentiment despite what happened in 9/11. Please do us a favor and go read about WWII. Then please go read a little about discrimination and privilege and you might understand what is being said.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you really that dense? Or are you being condescending? I can't tell. What I just used is what is known as a metaphor. Now go read about it. 69.171.160.132 (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Well either way the proper sources are cited and it is clear that there was anti-Japanese sentiment. If you would like to contest this feel free to call in an administrator.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
My god, pay attention. I'm not saying that there was not racism. Americans were rabid racists, but not GENOCIDAL. 69.171.160.132 (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
No one said they were genocidal. It said clearly that 13% believed the Japanese should be genocided. No implimintation was used. There are a ton of Americans who think LGBT people should be genocided. Do you want to deny that also. After 9/11 there was talk about Middle Eastern genocide. The poll is very clearly from a reliable source. It is not saying the United States commited genocide on the Japanese people its saying 13% believed it should.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
People don't take ridiculous polls like this seriously. This is why it's hard to tell how many Russians like Stalin, for example. It's not impossible for people to be sarcastic. Statistics like this are not perfect and irrefutable. And you know full well. You are anti-American and like to think Americans are evil. 69.171.160.132 (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
That's quite a claim. I am American. Acknowledging racism does not make me Anti-American. America has oppressed many different groups of people including my people. Please though if you really want to debate the reliability of the source please call in an administrator. They will look over to see if the source is accurate. I personally can not test it at this point however I strongly encourage you to test it as a reliable source. It could only improve Wikipedia no matter which way you find.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
There are plenty of obnoxious anti-American Americans. And you are frustrating as hell to talk to. You keep going way off track and have still not addressed my points. 69.171.160.132 (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
You're point is you don't feel the source is good enough and therefore that it shouldn't be in the article. Good, then challenge it. Bring it to an administrator on the Reliable source Noticeboard That is the only way to get it taken down. Now you may either do that, find another reliable source that disputes it and then you can bring up the dispute in the article or drop the topic. In short your three options 1. Reliable source noticeboard 2. Find contradicting reliable source use to talk about dispute in article or 3. Drop topic. And one final note your calling me Anti-American is immature. If what I'm saying makes me Anti-American it would certainly make you Anti-Japanese. Both Anti-Americanism and American Exceptionalism including Americentrism are racism. I strongly abhor racism. If what you are saying is true I might be Anti-American but you would be both an American Exceptionalist as well as Anti-Japanese so do one of the three things I stated or grow up and leave this article alone.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Something is wrong with you. I've never talked to someone oblivious with such scattered thoughts. 69.171.160.132 (talk) 06:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Both of you need to stop arguing about your opinions about America, Japan, racism, and opinion polls. None of this matters at all for a Wikipedia article--we care what reliable sources say. There are two specific reasons why we might consider removing the info: 1) the source is not reliable per WP:RS. 2) The source is reliable, but the information isn't important enough to include per WP:UNDUE. Now, normally I'd be inclined to say that a single opinion poll from 60 years ago conducted by a single source is not particularly important. But the fact that a reliable academic thought it was important enough to discuss in a book makes me lean back towards inclusion. But I could be swayed. So, the RS issue is a policy based one, that can, as stated above, be discussed at WP:RSN. The undue one, however, is a matter of editorial judgment and warrants further discussion here. Given that an academic cites it and considers it important, does that sway the IP towards keeping it? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

To the IP editor: You keep mentioning how you want to have a disclaimer inserted, both here and in edit summaries. We have a policy page at WP:No disclaimers that specifically forbids the use of disclaimers within Wikipedia. --benlisquareTCE 05:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I am at a loss for words.... None of you has any scintilla of a clue what I have been saying this whole time. It is unbelievable how pigheaded people can be. 69.171.160.132 (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
We heard you we just don't care about your personal opinion on polls. Its irrelevant. This is an encyclopedia not an editorial of a magazine. As has been said if you don't think its a reliable source please take it to the noticeboard.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Let me try to see if I understand: you think that many, if not most or all, opinion polls are flawed, because people don't answer them seriously (based, it seems, in large part, on the fact that you yourself don't answer them seriously). It is certainly your right to hold that opinion. However, Wikipedia doesn't deal in the opinions--it deals in the comments of reliable sources; and it is of course the case that scholars create, use, and cite opinion polls all of the time. If a reliable source considers the poll to be important that is an indication that we should also consider it important. It's not a certainty, however; the specific source in question is obviously much more narrow than our article, and so we could still argue that even though the poll was important to the detailed academic book, it's not important enough for a more general encyclopedia article on the subject. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
It is my opinion that Wikipedia must have a balanced NPOV. 69.171.160.132 (talk) 07:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, if multiple people have made it clear that they disagree with you, does that make everyone else the evil "pigheaded" boogeyman, or does that mean that you should reconsider your position as merely one opinion out of many? We don't necessarily write what is "right", we write what is verifiable amongst reliable sources. Regarding your point about NPOV, I too could argue that whitewashing information because you don't like it also constitutes a POV problem. --benlisquareTCE 12:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon

To IP user, this is the final warning. You have already violated WP:3RR. Please note "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.". If you revert again, you will be range blocked from editing.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Phoenix's added citation[edit]

Phoenix7777 added a new scholarly article about American anti-Japanese opinion. The IP removed it, another editor reinserted it, IP re-removed, then I re-added...but I re-removed it myself. I agree with Phoenix and Rainbox that that information belongs in the article, but we can't put it where Phoenix put it (unless I'm misunderstanding the source). Putting it there makes it sound like Goldhagen is specifically commenting on the 1944 poll in question; my understanding is that he's making a more general claim about American anti-Japanese sentiment. Putting the two statements right next to each other seems to imply a connection to me, which then violates WP:SYNTH. So I agree that the new Goldhagen info should be included, but just that it needs to go somewhere else, or be phrased differently. Any suggestions? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Goldhagen wrote in his book:[1]
In December 1944, in response to the public opinion survey question "What do you think we should do with Japan as a country after the war?" 13 percent of American chose "kill all Japanese." So it is no surprise that Americans perpetrated and supported mass slaughters - Tokyo's firebombing and then nuclear incinerations - in the name of saving American lives, and of giving the Japanese what they richly deserved.
"Putting the two statements right next to each other" is not my edit but the author's original. Although there are more reasons described above the sentence, my edit hardly violates WP:SYNTH.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I did, in fact, misunderstand. The info does, then, go right there. Sorry for the back-and-forth. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
That section should mention that by several years into the war, a very significant number of Americans were convinced that the Japanese "set no value on human life" in any way that Americans could understand, and that the fact that the Japanese set no value on human life was an indication that the Japanese were profoundly culturally alien (i.e. shared few American values, and overall had very extremely little in common with Americans). There was certainly abundant generalized hostility toward wartime antagonists, and free-floating racism, but much Anti-Japanese sentiment in the United States at that time was based on specific incidents which persuaded Americans that the Japanese did not accept internationally-accepted rules of war, were aggressively indifferent or hostile to all humanitarian concerns, and did not follow any moral or ethical code that Americans could understand -- in short, that the Japanese "set no value on human life". AnonMoos (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)