Talk:Gaijin

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3: Apr 2006 - May 2006 Archive 4: Jun 2006 - Feb 2007 Archive 5: Mar 2007 - May 2007 Archive 6: May 2007 (Gaijin in classical literature, review of definitions) Archive 7: Early June 2007: “Essay: Dictionary Definitions—What the dictionaries say” and attendant discussion Archive 8: June 2007 - 14 August 2007

• Exploding Boy’s old version of article, for reference (includes RomaC’s comment)
• A working version of Exploding Boy’s old version with suggestions from JAL

---

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)

"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.

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)

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)