Talk:Japan bashing

Untitled

The term "Japan bashing", or "Japan-bashing", was first coined in the early 1980s by Robert Angel, a paid lobbyist for the Japanese government.

Did he have a job title besides lobbyist? For example was he a polititian? A professor? A businessman? Just because a person coined a term doesn't mean the phenomenon which is described by that term is fictional or that it never existed.--Tokek 08:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Today, the term "Japan-bashing" is often used against Asian critics who accuse Japan of attempting territorial expansionism and whitewashing history (see Senkaku Islands, Liancourt Rocks, Yasukuni Shrine, and Japanese history textbook controversies).

This is a baseless and incorrect assumption. I guess the original creator of this article wanted to advocate his pro-China and anti-Japan POV, however assumption 1 being made in the article, that somehow "Japan-bashing" is a magic word that automatically discredits any argument that uses it is false. Assumption 2, that usage of "Japan-bashing" is extended beyond describing 80's US-Japan trade conflict is false. The major problem with the article, however, is that it doesn't describe the phenomenon which the term Japan bashing refers to.--Tokek 08:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The so-called "phenomenon" of "Japan-bashing" is dealt with in Anti-Japanese sentiment. So it is appropriate that this article deals only with the term "Japan bashing".

article seems quite NPOV to me. Tokek may just be very sensitive. --Sumple (Talk) 03:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sumple: Perhaps you are more familiar with POV disputes and can add a comment or two on when it is appropriate to remove a POV tag, and when it isn't. At first look, it seems logical to add a POV tag while there is a POV dispute. Yes, it is possible that a version that is NPOV in my view may be just a topic already covered in the Anti-Japanese sentiment article, hence redundant and unnecessary of being anything more than a redirect page. However, that doesn't mean this article needs to be POVed.

Several other facts suggest this topic might not be deserving of an article - "Bush bashing" returns 1,350,000 hits, while "Japan bashing" returns only 46,800 on Google (even less than "China bashing"), as well as the fact that anyone can say "X bashing" where X is anything that's being bashed. The word "bashing" just refers to harshly criticising that something. Applying synicism to any and all who defends a bashee against predjudicial attacks is absurd and opinionated. And so far Bush bashing and China bashing has not been deemed as deserving of an article. —Tokek 13:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Robert Angel was a paid lobbyist for the Japanese government. He is also a professor, but in this context, he is mentioned as a lobbyist. Feel free to talk more about him in a Robert Angel article.

As the original creator of the article, however, I will have to ask you to apologize for making baseless accusations. I also find your comments extremely rude and inappropriate. Please be careful with your posts.

If you would like to add to the article more about the phenomenon, then do so. This is just the start content.--Sir Edgar 02:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sir Edgar: According to what you have already mentioned in the article, he is a paid lobbyist. I never disputed this claim of yours. It's hard to believe after reading your comment and your tone that you were looking for empathy or sympathy from me, so I'm not sure if you were actually looking for an apology or if you were just flamebaiting in a rant. Please cite the sentences that I wrote which specifically hurt your feelings. —Tokek 13:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

When I came to this page there did not seem to be a dispute as such because there was only one post and no reply in a week. Feel free to add back the tag if you feel there is a dispute. --Sumple (Talk) 03:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no dispute, but only an ad hominem attack. I do not have a "pro-China and anti-Japan POV" as Tokek has claimed. This accusation is indeed a "baseless and incorrect" assumption.

All of the content of this article was taken from the media and there are sources. Just do a search yourself.

I do agree, however, that there needs more information on the phenomenon such as references to the movie "Rising Sun", etc.--Sir Edgar 08:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

My comments were not baseless, they were based on my opinion, which should be pretty obvious from reading. I have no idea why you think that my characterisation of your contributions as "anti-Japanese" is either baseless, inaccurate, or requires an apology, although I concede that perhaps "pro-China" may have been an inaccurate observation. My point, however, is that you sounded similar to online users who have a certain set of mentality. If there ever was clarification that needed to be made, I meant to say that you "sounded like," and not "was" a pro-China supporter. But perhaps in reality you aren't pro-China in any possible way. However, this is a rather moot point unrelated to the discussion of how the article can be made NPOV.

Seeing that no one ever mentioned a movie by the name of "Rising Sun" in this talk page, but you are nevertheless "agreeing" kind of makes me wonder: who are you agreeing with?—Tokek 23:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I just came up with this proposal: instead of splintering one topic amongst the anti-Japanese sentiment article and this one, perhaps we can agree to move this article to Robert Angel and change Japan bashing to be a redirect to anti-Japanese sentiment because (A) this article is mostly about Robert Angel, and (B) it's not like he owns a registered trademark to the term "Japan bashing": people who use the phrase may be simply speaking naturally without any influence by Robert Angel. The term does not register a significant volume on Google's index, etc. —Tokek 00:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

A few points that I would like to make in respect to this dispute.

(1) A discussion of Robert Angel with regards to the coining of the term "Japan- Bashing" is only natural as it is documented that yes, indeed, he coined the term. Why not include information relevant to the origin of a term that is now seen as commonplace? (2) While I agree that a separate article solely devoted to Robert Angel is a good idea, the coining of "Japan-Bashing" is merely another feather in the hat of an interesting man who has had a distinguised career; for the significance of "Japan-bashing" not to be overlooked it deserves its own entry. (3) We are always looking for ways to label and categorize conditions that may already exist--this categorization does not mean these conditions did not exist previously. This is an entry relevant to a term, and when it came to popular use. There may be room in this entry for further elaboration on positve and negative uses of the term "Japan-bashing". (4) "Japan-bashing" has been mentioned in published articles noting the origin and popular emergence of its significance. I would be interested to see any articles that track the evolution of the terms "Bush-bashing", or "China-bashing". If such documentation does exist, then perhaps these terms also warrant an individual entry. (5) The method for deciding the worth of an entry is not based on the number of "google" hits it recieves. (6) Robert Angel was a lobbyist, coined the term "Japan-bashing", and its popular use has been attributed to him. The only assumption I can make from this is that anyone who uses the term "Japan-bashing" has been influenced by Robert Angel either directly or indirectly--which would make him a very successful lobbyist with regards to the formulation and widespread use of this term.

I look forward to this meritless dispute being reviewed and addressed.—Dbpwiki 07:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see more content added and view the proposed edits to make this article no longer POV as claimed. There has been no objection to editing thus far, so why is there just whining that it is biased? Go ahead and add content and edit!--Sir Edgar 08:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Dbpwiki awfully sounds like Sir Edgar in tone and writing style, and only has only made one edit. Could it be sockpuppetry? This certainly rasises my curiosity.—Tokek 15:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint Tokek, no sockpuppetry here; glad to see the POV removed.--Dbpwiki 04:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Tokek- Why don't you file a complaint and see for yourself to satisfy your curiousity, instead of launching baseless accusations? After you do so, you may promptly issue an apology to me.--Sir Edgar 04:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge both to japanophobia

isn't the term equivalent to francophobia and anglophobia? his invented term is not authority for keeping it named such,it makes the issue seem like insignificant quarrel(object of bashing/criticism) instead of racism(all Anti-something sentiment is racism disguised as popular opinion). Fear of foreign culture,goverment,or business overtaking local culture,goverment or business,expressed as hate for nationals of foreign country is phobia.Japanophobia fits the term.Its generalizes all Japanese as responsible for perceived or real events,as potential threat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrozenVoid (talk • contribs)

Oppose I would disagree that all Anti-something sentiment is racism disguised as popular opinion, eg anti-Americanism has nothing to do with race or the ethnic origins of its people. LDHan 13:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• The idea that you can invent the term "Japan bashing" seems rather silly to me. For example, it's like saying someone can invent or coin the phrase "book reading." Both the words "book" and "reading" have been in existence long enough, the use of "book reaeding" is not new, there is nothing extraordinary or innovative about combining the terms "book" and "reading" into a single phrase. I am not sure what the other article is that you are talking about when you say merge both - I assume you mean merge Japan bashing and Anti-Japanese sentiment. In that case, I think Anti-Japanese sentiment is and should remain the main article when it comes to this subject, as the term is frequently the choice term used by the press nowadays. I wouldn't mind if the contents of Japan bashing either:

1. Got merged into Anti-Japanese sentiment

   As that is the main article, and there would be more editors looking at it to make sure that the content is up to quality.

2. Got moved to Robert Angel

   If the article is going to be mainly about Robert Angel, then it would be more appropriate to move the contents to an article under his name, instead of trying to hijack a term that could otherwise be a redirect to the main article, Anti-Japanese sentiment.

Tokek 14:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

right. do you also think it's also silly that the McDonalds Corporation can trade mark the use of the word "McDonalds" in connection with food? Afterall, the name McDonald has existed for centuries and all those people must have eaten at some stage, right? --Sumple (Talk) 05:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, McDonalds hasn't filed a trademark for "Japan bashing," as far as I can tell. Can't tell if you're for keep, move, or merge either. —Tokek 17:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. Let me spell out my argument:

1. I oppose the move because "Japan bashing" as a phrase is conceptually different from "anti-Japanese sentiment". Anti-Japanese sentiment refers to people who don't like Japan, e.g. "I hate Japan because they killed thirty million of my countrymen 50 years ago." By contrast, "Japan bashing" can also be specifically an accusation of "anti-Japanese sentiment" used by certain people in the United States and Japan in order to procure benefits in the interest of Japan, e.g. "You Japan-bashers! If you don't pass this bill you're Japan-bashing!"
2. The basic premises of your argument, that "you can't invent a phrase like Japan-bashing", is flawed. Your analogy is that "book" and "reading" are both common words, therefore "book-reading" cannot be invented. However, Japan-bashing as used in this context has a special meaning, not just "an attack on Japan". In addition, it connotes an accusation of an attack on Japan in order to procure advantages in the Japanese interest -- which is detailed in the article if you'd read it carefully and neutrally.
3. I gave the McDonalds analogy, because even though the Clan Donald has existed for centuries, and so has food, and the two are connected in some way, that does not mean that McDonalds has not "invented" its brand name in connection with food. Thus, even though "bashing" and "Japan" may be pre-existing words, that does not automatically mean that "Japan bashing" is not an "invented" phrase, in its particular context. --Sumple (Talk) 00:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong.Ironic this has been dicussed by the term author.

"The basic premises of your argument, that "you can't invent a phrase like Japan-bashing", is flawed. Your analogy is that "book" and "reading" are both common words, therefore "book-reading" cannot be invented. However, Japan-bashing as used in this context has a special meaning, not just "an attack on Japan". In addition, it connotes an accusation of an attack on Japan in order to procure advantages in the Japanese interest -- which is detailed in the article if you'd read it carefully and neutrally."

[[1]] The tendency to characterize people's beliefs - instead of focusing on their actions - is one of the true abuses of the power of the media. Look how quickly Kimba Woods was transformed from respected jurist to Playboy bunny; just as I went from author to racist Japan-basher. In my case, what was striking was how many journalists applied the Japan-bashing label, without appearing to have read my book. The hazards of this practice became clear in a few months, when the Columbia Journalism Review reported last December that the term "Japan-bashing" was invented by an American public relations flack at the Japan Economic Institute, a Japanese lobbying organization. The term was promoted as a way to stifle debate, including legitimate debate, on relations with Japan. The man who coined the phrase said: "Anyone who uses that term is my intellectual dupe."

An important article, but sources should be cited to make it better

"Japan bashing" became a househould term in the 1980s, and thus has historical (and present-day) significance and notability. The article should definitely stay, and I would like to see it exanded. Related terms such as "Bush-bashing," etc. can trace their etymology to Japan bashing, just as terms like "I LOVE (whatever)" (with a heart symbol replacing the word LOVE) can be traced to the term "I LOVE NY," which began in the 1970s. However, there should be inline citations and references, to make the article better. Of course, I could research this and provide citations and references, but I am sure the originator of the article could do a better job than I with the material as it is now written.

Problem with sources

The article was recreated with the previous defects, see [2]. Notably, the sources cited in the "Etymology" section did not contain anything about the etymology. --Викидим (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)