Talk:Gaijin

Special term?

This article takes a long time coming to the point that the word has no definitions which can directly be taken as negative or pejorative. But instead the "political correct" activists have assigned connotations to the word which actually belong to the strong attitudes which is applied, often along with specific longer phrasings. That is, its not the phrasing alone and especially not the individual words that are negative.

Instead negativity comes from the attitude in vocal tone and body language which adds emphasis and subtext to the words said. Surely there is a term that describes this in a word or two.

Also a word or two that describes the prejudicial reflex that begins assuming the specific attitude based on any similarity of wording. Hopefully also words that also point out the futility of "political correct" policy that outlaws certain otherwise neutral words or combination...given that the negative attitude remains and can adopt new words rather easily.65.26.139.168 (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not our job. See WP:OR. Jpatokal (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Also used for asians?

Is gaijin used for people from the west only? Is the same term used for Korean and Chinese people? --93.220.22.148 (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Gaijin or Gaikokujin is used for all overseas people including Chinese and Korean. --風羽瑞穂 (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

While Gaikokujin is indeed used for all foreigners, I disagree with 風羽瑞穂: "gaijin" normally is used more on a basis of appearance/"foreigness", in practice meaning "black/white guy". Jair Moreno (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Both "gaikokujin" and "gaijin" refers to any foreigner. The reason why "gaijin" often tends to refer to non-Asians is that the Asians (especially the Chinese and the Koreans) tend to be referred by their specific nationality. 121.114.125.220 (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

@Jair Moreno - I know this is really old, but Asia is not a monolith or a singular "race", even though Western nations like America or the U.K label them as a singular "Asian" (Asian American, British Asian) category that often denotes only one region of Asia in common speech (East Asia for Americans and South Asia for British).

The "Asian" that this discussion seems to mean is East Asian or "Yellow Asian" peoples. Sources provided on the page generally state that the term is applied to "white", "black", or even "brown" people, but note that some "Yellow" people, such as the ethnic Koreans, have specific nationality terms in Japan, even if they would also be considered "gaijin". I don't see anything about specific terminology for generally dark-skinned Asians of non-East Asian ethnicity, like the Filipinos, Indians, Iranians, Pakistanis, etc.

Lots of non-Japanese Asians are seen as "foreigners" in Japan. Half-Filipino/half-Japanese model, Rina Fukushi is considered mixed-race (hafu) and was told she looked "foreign" because of her Brown appearance, even though she is full Asian by descent. Similarly, Priyanka Yoshikawa, a Japanese of Indian descent faced similar accusations of being "foreign" in Japan, despite being full Asian descent.[1] Clear Looking Glass (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The Lead

One reliable source cited in the lead sentence mentions that the word "gaijin" could be "slightly derogatory." However, the sentence reads "Some commentators feel that the word is negative or derogatory in connotation, and thus offensive." I removed "derogatory" because that's not what the reliable sources actually said. Someone put it back without explanation. I'm wondering if can put either "slightly derogatory" in quotation marks or simply remove it entirely because that's not what the reliable sources say. J Readings (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Slightly later on in the article, there are three cites given for "...it is seen as derogatory by some". One of which is the "slightly derogatory" one, but unfortunately Google Books isn't letting me see the other two... Jpatokal (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

First two sentences

The first sentence says: "Gaijin (外人, [ɡaidʑiɴ]) is a Japanese word meaning "non-Japanese", or "alien". This word is a short form of がいこくじん【外国人】(translation: Gaikokujin), which means foreign people.". There are numerous problems here:

1. The meaning is wrong. Essentially all Japanese dictionaries show two distinct senses:
   1. one who is not a friend; an outsider
   2. one without Japanese citizenship; non-Japanese, an alien.
2. The citation should be improved to any number of Japanese dictionaries.
3. The word is not short for 外国人. At best it is only short for 外国人 for one of the two senses.
4. Gaikokujin is not a translation for 外国人, but is a transliteration.

Regards, Bendono (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Is gaijin listed as a short-form of gaikokujin in Japanese and Japanese-English dictionaries? Bendono stated that it's not, but having reviewed 20 dictionaries on this matter, I remain unconvinced and respectfully disagree. I will let my research of Japanese and Japanese-English dictionaries on this particular issue speak for itself. It can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaijin/Archive_7

The verifiable evidence in dictionary form was not invented by anyone here, but simply reported. I can think of no reason to block its inclusion in this encyclopedia entry when the objective is simply to report what the preponderance of reliable secondary sources state. How we choose to cite all of these sources in the article was always the real concern. I just never had the time to list them all. J Readings (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Except for the J-A dictionaries, I own nearly all of those Japanese dictionaries. And none of them say that it an abbreviation. I would assume that you read them, but lets go through one at a time.

1. がいじん【外人】『名』①．家族、親戚、仲間などのささいの外にいる人。無関係の人。他人。②　外国人。特に、欧米人をいう場合が多い。 --Gaijin. In S. Kobayashi (ed.), Nihon kokugo daijiten (日本国語大辞典), (p. 258, 1st ed., vol. 1). (1943). Tokyo: Shogakukan.

No mention that it is an abbreviation.

【外人】①　仲間以外の人。門人外の人。②　ほかの人。よその人。他人。 --Gaijin. Daikanwa jiten (大漢和辞典), (p. 330, 2nd ed., 3rd pr., vol. 3). (1986). Tokyo: Taishukan shoten.

No mention that it is an abbreviation.

がいじん【外人】①　外国の人。外国人。特に、欧米人をいうことが多い。⇔邦人。「外人客」②　そのことに関係のない人。第三者。「外人もなき所に兵具をととのへ／平家一」 --Gaijin. In A. Matsumura (ed.), Daijirin (大辞林), (p. 397, 9th ed., vol. 1). (1989). Tokyo: Sanseido.

No mention that it is an abbreviation.

1. がいじん【外人】外国人。異人。Foreigner --Gaijin. In T. Umesao et. al. (eds.), Nihongo Daijiten (日本語大辞典:講談社カラ版), (p. 163, 1st ed., 8th pr., vol. 1). (1990). Tokyo: Kodansha.

No mention that it is an abbreviation.

1. Gaijin. (外人) n. 外国の人 a foreigner --Gaijin. In Shini Seigi (ed.), Kokugo Sogo Shinjiten (国語総合新辞典), (p. 197, 2nd ed., vol. 1). (1992). Tokyo:

No mention that it is an abbreviation.

1. がいじん。【外人】[無関係な、よそ者、の意]　外国人。[同化を拒まれている異国人、という意味で使われることが多いので、濫用すべきでない。例、「変な外人」、「外人教師」。 --Gaijin. In T. Yamada (ed.), Shimeikai kokugo jiten (新明解国語辞典), (p. 213, 5th ed., vol. 1). (1997). Tokyo: Sanseido.

No mention that it is an abbreviation.

1. がいじん。【外人】①　外国人、特に、欧米人をいう。②　仲間以外の人。他人。「外人もなき所に兵具をととのへ」〈平家・一〉【外人部隊】外国人の志願者で編制した傭兵（ようへい）部隊。 --Gaijin. In A. Matsumura (ed.), Daijisen (大辞泉), (p. 437, 1st ed., vol. 1). (1998). Tokyo: Shogakukan.

No mention that it is an abbreviation.

1. がいじん【外人】①　仲間以外の人。疎遠の人。連理秘抄「外人など上手多からむ座にては」②　敵視すべきな人。平家一「外人もなき所に兵具をととのへ」③　外国人。異人。⇔邦人。 --Gaijin. In I. Shimura (ed.), Kojien (広辞苑), (p. 438, 5th ed., vol. 1). (1998). Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.

No mention that it is an abbreviation.

1. がいじん【外人】外国人。⇔邦人。 --Gaijin. In M. Nishio et. al. (eds.), Kokugo jiten (国語辞典) , (p. 173, 6th ed., vol. 1). (2000). Tokyo: Iwanami.

No mention that it is an abbreviation.

1. 【外人】①　外国人。異人。対：邦人。「外人教師」②　局外者。他人。「源平両家の童形たちのおのおのござ候ふに、かやうの外人は然るべからず候」 --Gaijin. In M. Yamaguchi et. al. (eds.), Shinkango jiten (新漢語辞典), (p. 282, 2nd ed., vol. 1). (2000). Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.

No mention that it is an abbreviation.

OK. While hardly an excellent source for linguistic information, lets look at the J<->E dictionaries:

1. Foreigner. n. 1. 外国人、外人、異人（alien）. 2. 外国の産物、外国製品、外来物、舶来品。３．外国船。 --Foreigner. In J. Stein (ed.), Shogakukan’s Random House English-Japanese Dictionary, (p. 989, 1st ed., vol. 1). (1979). Tokyo: Shogakukan.

No mention that it is an abbreviation.

1. Gaijin. (外人) n. a foreigner; an alien. --Gaijin. In Koh Masuda (ed.), Kenkyusha’s New Japanese-English Dictionary, (p. 306, 4th ed., 11th impression). (1985). Tokyo: Kenkyushu Ltd.

No mention that it is an abbreviation.

1. Gaijin. (外人)　n. foreigner, alien. Variant: gaikokujin. --Gaijin. In The Japanese Foundation (ed.), Basic Japanese-English Dictionary, (p. 141, 1st. ed., vol. 1). (1986). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

No mention that it is an abbreviation. Variant does not mean abbreviation.

1. Foreigner. n. ①　外国人、外人、異人（alien）. ②　外国の物産、外国製品、舶来品。③　【話】よそ者（outsider）. --Foreigner. In T. Konishi et. al. (eds.), Shogakukan’s Progressive English-Japanese Dictionary, (p. 733, 2nd ed., vol. 1). (1987). Tokyo: Shogakukan.

No mention that it is an abbreviation.

1. Foreigner. Gaikoku’jin外国人; gaijin外人 --Foreigner. In N. Brannen (ed.), the Practical English-Japanese Dictionary, (p. 123, 1st ed., vol. 1). (1991). New York: Weatherhall.

No mention that it is an abbreviation.

1. Foreigner. n. 外国人 gaikokujin. --Foreigner. In R. Gorin and Y. Okubo (eds.), Collins Shubun English-Japanese Dictionary (p. 197, 1st ed., vol. 1). (1993). Seattle: Harper Collins Publishers & Shubun International Co., Ltd.

No mention that it is an abbreviation.

1. Gaijin. (外人) n. foreigner. Abbreviation of gaikokujin. --Gaijin. In Shigeru Takebayashi (ed.), The Kenkyusha Romanized Japanese-English Learner’s Pocket Dictionary (p. 73, 1st ed., vol. 1). (1993). Tokyo: Kenkyusha Ltd.

Finally, a single reference. But it is missing one of the two senses given in nearly every Japanese dictionary.

1. Gaijin, n. 外人 foreigner. --Gaijin. In Seigo Nakao (ed.), Random House Japanese-English/English-Japanese Dictionary (p. 64, 1st ed., vol. 1). (1995). New York: Random House.

No mention that it is an abbreviation.

1. Foreigner. n. 外国人; 外人 --Foreigner. In Timothy Vance (ed.), Kodansha’s Furigana Japanese Dictionary (Japanese-English/English-Japanese), (p. 227, 1st ed., vol. 1). (1999). Tokyo: Kodansha International Ltd.

No mention that it is an abbreviation.

1. がいじん。【外人】a foreigner. [⇒がいこくじん] --Gaijin. In T. Watanabe (ed.), Kenkyusha’s New Japanese-English Dictionary, (p. 473, 5th ed., vol. 1). (2003). Tokyo: Kenkyusha.

No mention that it is an abbreviation.

Exactly how did you come to the following conclusion: "They all agree that gaijin is a neutral contraction of gaikokujin in contemporary Japan." Bendono (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

All I can say in this astonished reply, is that I'm wondering if every time you read the word 外国人 and [⇒がいこくじん] (with the derivative arrow for gaijin next to it) as well as sometimes the word "variant" in definition of the word 外人 above, you only sought the English word "abbreviation" in order to make an unnecessary argument that it's not a contraction or abbreviation? And yes, as you do acknowledge to your credit, dictionaries also sometimes explicitly use the word "abbreviation", too, that 外人 is just that: a contraction or abbreviation of 外国人, leaving little doubt that this is not my own original research. Whether we choose to call it an abbreviation or a variant or a contraction is of lesser concern to me than the point that it is considered such. J Readings (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, on this issue of what the noun "variant" means, I consulted a few dictionaries (sigh) and I believe the definition still reinforces the underlying point of discussion. According to dictionary.com, for example, "variant" can be defined as "a different spelling, pronunciation, or form of the same word: 'Vehemency' is a variant of 'vehemence.'" Following this definition, gaijin is a different form of the same word gaikokujin. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "variant" as "varying usually slightly from the standard form <variant readings> <variant spellings>." Following this definition, the variant gaijin would be a slightly different form of the standard gaikokujin. Regards, J Readings (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly not understanding the definitions. When it says 外国人, that is a definition for one of the senses of 外人. When it says ⇒がいこくじん, that means to see がいこくじん because it defines that one sense of the word. That does not mean it is an abbreviation for it.

I strongly suggested three years ago to you to consult the second (latest) edition of 日本国語大辞典, which is the Japanese equivalent of the OED. There it gives dates for the earliest citations for usages. I still strongly encourage you and anyone else to consult it. But to summarize it, the earliest citation for 外国人 is 1859. The earliest citation for 外人 is c. 995-999. If 外人 is an abbreviation for 外国人, then the word 外国人 should be attestable before usage of 外人. However, history shows that we must wait well more than 800 years for the word 外国人 to appear. Further, it is clear that early usage of 外人 referred to Japanese, not foreigner nationals, so again 外人 cannot be an abbreviation for 外国人. These two facts clearly show that 外国人 is not and cannot be an abbreviation for 外人. Bendono (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. Perhaps not. However, there are dictionaries and other reliable sources that clearly state that it is an abbreviation or a variant of 外国人. You cannot deny and evade that fact, Bendono, which raises issues of source selection. To insist that these reliable sources are wrong, is the equivalent of insisting that the word "derogatory" be removed from the text completely because only a very small selection of sources state it (and in a very qualified manner, too). The impression I get from reading your arguments is that we should selectively choose which definitions of the word we place in the Encyclopedia article based on an unclear (and possibly original) source-selection criteria. That's why, I suspect, nothing was ever accomplished on this issue. Speaking only for myself, I wasn't comfortable with it then. I'm not comfortable with it now. J Readings (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

However, there are dictionaries and other reliable sources that clearly state that it is an abbreviation or a variant of 外国人. You cannot deny and evade that fact, Bendono, which raises issues of source selection. I'm not Bendono and I'd like to think that I'm neither "in denial" nor evasive. Indeed, I embrace this fact, if it is indeed a fact. So precisely which are these dictionaries and other reliable sources? (Currently the article -- which I haven't edited in ages -- declares it as fact, but with "citation needed".) -- Hoary (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"non-Japanese citizens" is an oxymoron. Everyone is a citizen of somewhere. So you are implying that people who have Japanese citizenship are not necessarily Japanese. Oxymoron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.102.184.193 (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Category: "gaijin" as slur.

I removed the category of gaijin as an ethnic and religious slur for the moment. It's not my intention to offend anyone, but it seems to me that something with such diversity of documented reliable opinion and rich etymological research shouldn't be so easily categorized as necessarily a "slur" when the reliable sources don't agree on the nature of the word at all. J Readings (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I lack sources for this but I think you'll find that it's in the (to my mind) silly lists of allegedly offensive terms that mustn't be uttered on teevee and the like. I do remember seeing an article in Shūkan Kin'yōbi apologizing for its inadvertent use in an earlier issue; I had a good laugh over the solemnity of it all. If I'm right (and again I don't claim to have any evidence), then the guardians of verbal rectitude have determined that it's a slur. This of course doesn't mean that it's actually a slur. (Guardians of verbal rectitude in English are well known to have perpetrated the silliest of fictions. Indeed, that stupid but improbably popular book The Elements of Style, as one example, remains full of them.) Incidentally, I don't see what etymology would have to do with it, unless perhaps the term wore its etymology in its orthography (cf 毛唐). -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that one source regarding the television issue determines that the word gaijin is a slur; it documents that (for whatever legal reason) the author states that television producers avoid its use (with no explanation as to why it's avoided if the source is carefully read.) In any case, I still have a difficult time following how the word can be definitely categorized as a "slur" in this encyclopedia article when the secondary sources in the article disagree. Incidentally, etymology aside (that was a bad choice of words on my part), when last I checked a year ago, the word 毛唐 was usually labeled as derogatory in dictionaries, encyclopedias, and articles, so I wouldn't necessarily question the label in that instance. However, that is not the case for the word gaijin. J Readings (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have heard it used as a slur before. Of course in ancient times it was used with an alternative meaning; for example when discussing a samurai from an outside clan, but the polite way to say that in modern Japanese is 第三者. "Gaijin" can surely be used as a slur depending on the use and the intentions of the user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.114.102.196 (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course gaijin is a slur. My wife's family have had the good sense never to use the word to refer to me. Never, not once, so I never had to bring the subject up. They did use the word though.

If people call you a gaijin, they are belittling you. It's a slur. J Readings lacks understanding in this area, he might be on the spectrum? 111.102.184.193 (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

You better check how old the comment you're replying to is before speculating on someone's neural development. Nardog (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

"Outsider"

The word 外人 hasn't been used to mean "outsider" since at least the Edo Era (200+ years ago) (which is how far back I can read in Japanese), and if I'm not mistaken, since the Nara/Kamakura Eras, or thereabouts, when it was more commonly pronounced ほかびと. When used today, that meaning is not even in the back of peoples' heads. As such, I feel it is incorrect to say that the word means "outsider".

I rephrased it as '(literally and originally meaning "outside person") is a Japanese word for "foreigner," "non-Japanese", "alien".', which I feel is the most accurate way of describing it. Unfortunately, most Japanese dictionaries just list both the modern and archaic usage without listing the archaic usage as archaic.

If someone would wish to re-insert "outsider" as a listed meaning of the word, then I would suggest also citing something that explicitly states that the meaning of "outsider" is not just archaic, or a usage of the word in the past 200 years. Unfortunately, it is impossible to cite every single piece of Japanese media in the past 200 years as proof of it not having such a meaning in modern usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.112.115.99 (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The feelings of some modern commentators

The article history shows a bit of a kerfuffle about this edit, in which User:Arudoudebito (contributions) sticks a reference to a newspaper article by Debito Arudou (related) to the head of a list of now seven commentators who "feel that the word is now negative" (etc). (User:Arudoudebito also adds to its negative attributes.)

It's clear from the article that yes, Arudou is a commentator, and yes, he feels this. What's less clear to me is its significance to this article. Why must this be added, and why must it go to the head of the list? -- Hoary (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this discussion. What's different about this Japan Times article is that it's making the case that gaijin is not just a negative word, but also a racialized epithet. The Japan Times article, sourcing Japanese historical text, is making the case found nowhere else published (if you can find it somewhere else in print, please include it) that gaijin is a racist word.

It doesn't have to go to the head of the list. I just thought that would be the most appropriate place since it's where people were talking about the word's possible negative connotation. Put it where you like. Just include it, because it makes a new contribution to the debate, and it passes WP guidelines. This WP entry is not a BLP, so there is no COI (the same cannot be said about the editor accusing me of blatant self-promotion despite WP:GOODFAITH, see COI and COI.) Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 03:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the literature about this word; but if the only charge that it's racist can be found in a single newspaper article, could this charge perhaps be not sufficiently significant to be worth bothering about in this article? ¶ On the charge of COI, here are three quotations from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (which in their original context are separate and not numbered):

1. Adding material that appears to advance the interests or promote the visibility of an article's author, the author's family, employer, clients, associates or business, places the author in a conflict of interest.
2. Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with campaigns that engage in advocacy in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest.
3. Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.

-- Hoary (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I look forward to the community's opinion.Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 04:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Several problems exist with this citation. First is the source, this is from The Community page of the Japan Times - "Opinions, profiles and advice from the many communities of Japan." So this is not a rigorously checked source, it is an opinion page. While it is a good source for the commentators opinion that is the limit of it's reliable use as a source. The second problem is whether this is a relevant opinion. Since the author admits this is the only place this opinion can be found in print (and, if his analysis is correct it would make an excellent peer reviewed paper which would make an excellent source) the opinion is obviously not relevant or agreed upon by the linguistic community at large - someone else would have picked up on this and published it. In short - do not allow. Kltpzyxm Rd Dr Mxyzptlk (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It has been introduced in this article as an example of what "Some modern commentators feel". Opinion pages are where commentators tell readers their feelings. And whatever you think of its significance, its relevance is self-evident. (Incidentally, there's quite a jump from (A) correctness of analysis to (B) an excellent peer reviewed paper.) If by "the linguistic community at large" you mean (α) the people who pontificate about words (and particularly their alleged misuse), their (typically uninformed) opinions are rarely worth bothering with; if you mean (β) linguists at large, then most have no interest in such things. (Here is an example of (α) discussing an opuscule of (β), which will make the differences between the two groups clear.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to clear up Dr. Arudou on this point: when a user cites themselves in a Wikipedia article and keeps going despite meeting universal opposition from other Wikipedia editors, that is inherently COI. I don't appreciate my edit being linked above as being an example of another user's supposed COI in this case. WHAT ON EARTH DO I HAVE TO DO WITH THIS DISPUTE? Also, a user who has never edited a single article on Wikipedia that wasn't either about them, or to add references to their own external work, should not be throwing around the word "COI" at any other user who just happens to disagree with them. Please refrain from accusing other users of having COI, and please also refrain from hinting and/or implying that other users are violating BLP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not what's happening here, HIjiri88, calm down please. You are not being cited as the COI. I only chose that edit record to show that the other editor has personal reasons (Regular contributors to the Japan Times: "not any more, thank goodness") for trying to rashly delete things having to do with me even when they are incorrect (as in, the wrong presumption that I am no longer a columnist at the Japan Times, and your reversal of the edit (thanks for it, BTW) demonstrates that it was wrong). Okay? And I'll stop calling out other editors' hypocritical claims of COI when they stop accusing me of it. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 19:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

That diff doesn't show what you say it does. It shows me reverting some other user (I can't remember if it was the same user, and it's difficult to check on this phone). And even if it was, that just shows that they disagree with you. That's not a "COI", it's just a POV, and apparently quite a common one. You adding your own opinion to a Wikipedia article and linking to your own column in the Japan Times is COI-editing by even the strictest definition of the term. Another unrelated Wikipedia editor reverting you because your edit violated WP:COI and WP:UNDUE -- or even because they disagree with you -- is not COI-editing even by the broadest definition. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That diff shows precisely what I say it does; that's why I chose it. This is a tangent from the topic at hand, so please get off the phone, do some more research where you can see all the data available, then take a deep breath and calm down before commenting further. Actually, you needn't, because the discussion does not involve you personally in any way.

Second, this is not about an editor disagreeing with my opinion. This is about editor(s) having strong personal antipathy towards me as a person, and having that coming through in their edits. That is COI, and that was what I was trying to show with my COI links. Editors are supposed to not have feelings towards other editors one way or another. To quote an admin:

"The most relevant part of the conflict of interest guidelines is this: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. This means that if you have been in a dispute with Debito, you should consider yourself to have a conflict of interest here. Editors with a conflict of interest are encourage to disclose their interest on the talk pages of relevant articles that they edit, and are strongly discouraged from editing the articles themselves. See here and here for more information."(Source)

Finally, as for things being "my opinion": This is, as are all my newspaper columns in the Japan Times, a researched piece that has passed through an editorial process in a newspaper before being published. It uses multiple sources and is checked by one editor, sometimes more than one, for accuracy. They are not merely blog posts. They are published works that qualify for inclusion under WP rules. So judge the article on its merits for inclusion, and stop shooting the messenger simply because he happened to write it. Likewise, if I were to source some of my academic articles (there are many) in this or other WP posts (especially those about abstract topics), would they face similar charges of COI? I strongly doubt they should. Let's have some citations of actual text about COI infractions, chapter and verse, instead of these assertions that are, hypocritically, YOUR opinions about how COI is to be interpreted and enforced against me personally in an article that is, as Hoary argued above, relevant to the subject at hand. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 08:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Please go easy on the boldface: it looks shouty. ¶ Arudoudebito quotes Mr. Stradivarius (@Mr. Stradivarius:). Here's the quote in a little more context: He is concerned that people who he has had disputes with about debito.org and about his activism are editing this article [i.e. Debito Arudou] in order to portray him in a negative light. If these accusations are true, it is a cause for concern. For one thing, this motivation for editing the article is just as much a conflict of interest as Debito's. The most relevant part of the conflict of interest guidelines is this: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. This means that if you have been in a dispute with Debito, you should consider yourself to have a conflict of interest here. ¶ I have had no interaction whatever with Arudou outside Wikipedia. I don't remember having expressed any opinion anywhere about his activism or his website. Here in Wikipedia, I expressed an opinion or two about articleworthiness, etc, within Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debito Arudou. I have expressed opinions within the archive pages of Talk:Debito Arudou. Does this mean that I have a conflict of interest? (I think not.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the boldface. Anyway, I think as seasoned debaters we understand by now the difference between a disagreement in opinion and being disagreeable towards a person through personal dislike. Feel free to disagree, and say why persuasively. That's not COI. However, as soon as there is any evidence of personal dislike towards an editor, or a person (and there is naturally quite a lot of that out there towards me due to my life work dealing with a controversial but important subject: racism in Japan), that disliker should stop editing things in connection with the person s/he dislikes. That's how we avoid ad hominem on WP. Not sure why this needs clarification.

Anyway, to get back on topic, this section is about the feelings/opinion of modern commentators. This article is both from an opinion and from a "modern commentator" as it were, and passes WP rules for publication through an editorial process. So include it. Not because I said so. But because it stands to reason that it should be. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 18:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, first: I've checked the diffs and yes, the user in question was the same one I reverted on the Japan Times page. I had misremembered him/her as an IP, and I apologize for the mistake. I do not take responsibility for Dr. Arudou's irresponsible use of the wrong diff, which was a direct accusation against me.

Second: I think if we're listing commentators who don't approve of the word "gaijin", then leaving Arudou off the list is ridiculous. Of course he belongs on the list. However...

Third: redefining the word as "racist" based solely on Dr. Arudou's JT editorials is a violation of WP:WEIGHT.

Fourth: Dr. Arudou insisting on linking his own JT editorial when faced with (near?) unanimous opposition is most definitely a violation of WP:COI.

Fifth: Dr. Arudou's assertion that other users who oppose this or that edit he has made have a "COI" because (he believes) they are biased against him because of negative interactions in real live is a violation of WP:AGF. Dr. Arudou, please understand that other users who disagree with your edit to this article are not doing it because they don't like you as a person or because they have had negative interactions with you outside Wikipedia. Some MIGHT be, but guessing that they are without reasonable evidence is at best an assumption of bad faith, and at worst a speculation on other users' real-world identities. You are highly encouraged to refrain from this from now on.

Sixth: Dr. Arudou's assertions about the editorial process behind his JT columns are off-topic, since they don't lend any more WP:WEIGHT to his published opinions. Even if the Japan Times editorial staff unanimously declared their agreement with this opinion it would still be a relatively small number, and it's still an opinion. And while we're on the subject of off-topic...

Seventh: while it's not really relevant here, Dr. Arudou's citing his own opinions, sometimes negative opinions of living people, and defending them by saying "they passed through a newspaper's editorial process" is hypocritical, when the same Japan Times editorial team passed responses to Dr. Arudou saying extremely negative things about him. This page doesn't have BLP issues, but given Dr. Arudou is citing his own JT column here, he cited his own JT column on the Donald Keene article, and in both cases defended his edits by pointing to the JT's editorial process. So for (relevant) comparison's sake, I would ask Dr. Arudou now if he would approve of citing his fellow JT columnist Gregory Clark's editorial columns as facts and/or widely held opinions just because they were passed by the JT editorial team? Clark is an independently notable, respected scholar and former diplomat who has served as the president of one university and vice-president of another, and has published numerous books not through Lulu Press.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC) [edited 10:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)]

I have the feeling you've got a lot of things bottled up inside that you want to discuss with me about (including comparative book publishers?). Another time in due course, perhaps. Just sticking to the topic at hand:

This is a discussion of a section about commentators opining about a word in published sources. The article I suggested is all that. How many people must also opine the same way before they their opinion defies WP:WEIGHT and they can be counted as commentators? And as for your claim of "(near?) unanimous opposition", I haven't heard much from anyone else here but you, so again, I look forward to more feedback from the larger community. Cheers. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 19:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Debito, please stop ignoring other people's comments. My mention of Dr. Clark was entirely relevant to the topic at hand, since you have said numerous times that because your opinions were published in the Japan Times they deserve to be treated as facts, but the Japan Times also publish opinions you don't agree with. I asked if you think those opinions should be cited as fact, or as being held by more than one person, as well, and you dodged the question. This is entirely relevant, because your proposed wording implies your views are held by commentators other than yourself. At least three other users have opposed you (or are you accusing me of sockpuppetry?), and no one has agreed with you -- and you have yet to cite a single published source by anyone other than yourself. If you think your personal opinion is notable enough to be cited in the manner you propose, then you should leave it to other editors to determine that. Otherwise, it is a violation or WP:COI. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring other people's comments. Just yours, Folks, how much more of this until it becomes WP:HARASS? Stepping away from the keyboard now and awaiting consensus on issue. Thank you. Dr. ARUDOU, Debito (Talk) 03:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I see no hint of harassment here. I might question some of the details of what Hijiri 88 says, but I'd broadly agree with him/her. If Arudoudebito would like more (uninvolved) people to comment, he's welcome to request comments. This explains the process. -- Hoary (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• What a mess of an article. I attempted a copyedit, but seriously, this thing needs a rewrite from top to bottom—and that's aside from all the obvious and less-than-obvious POV issues it's polluted with. It would help if all the op-ed "sources" at least were purged—this is not the kind of article where that kind of sourcing could be considered appropriate. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Original Research: listing every publication and screenplay that mentions the word "gaijin"?

Does anyone have any objections to these two sentences being deleted from the article for apparent WP:OR concerns?

"[Gaijin] is a recurring word in The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006), where it is used to refer to both the main character, an American, and his love interest. The author Ben Mezrich uses the word "gaijin" frequently in his book, Ugly Americans to refer to the society of Americans making their living from the Japanese stock market."

I realize that book and movie titles with the word "Gaijin" are mentioned in the previous paragraph, but if we're going to start listing every book or movie that mentions the word "gaijin" in the text or screenplay, eventually the article will become unreadable. I'm surprised those two sentences have lasted in the article this long. Can we remove them? Oddexit (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree—it's fluff, uncited, and definitely WP:OR. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

 removed two sentences of original research. Oddexit (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Nanette Gottlieb

I was just reading about Nanette Gottlieb when @Curly Turkey: deleted the sentence completely and asked who she was (I guess rhetorically). It seems that Nanette Gottlieb (and I never heard of her) is a member of the Australian Academy of the Humanities and a Sociologist of Language. Her PhD seems to be in Japanese Language and language policy.

Here is her biography from that page [2]:

Professor Nanette Gottlieb FAHA

Qualifications: BA(Hons)(Queensland), PhD(Queensland)
Year Elected to the Academy: 2006
Discipline: Asian Studies
Expertise: Sociology of language in Japan

Nanette Gottlieb is Professor of Japanese Studies in the School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies at the University of Queensland and has taught Japanese language and Japanese Studies courses at both Griffith University and the University of Queensland. She has published widely on the sociology of language in Japan, with a particular interest in language policy. Her administrative responsibilities have included a five year term as head of the School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies. From 2007 to 2011 she holds an Australian Professorial Fellowship to work on the project Immigration, technology and literacy: key challenges for language policy in a changing Japan.

I'm not a Sociologist of Language, so I defer to others about what her credentials mean for this article. What I think we can say safely, though, is that she's not a garden variety pundit writing deliberately controversial columns in a newspaper or a non-fictional author publishing for a general audience without the rigors of peer-review in specialist journals. She's a specialist in the field. Does it mean she gets her own sentence? Not necessarily. I added her name because someone requested the source be identified in the lead. Of all the sources we should be using for this article, a Sociologist of Language publishing in peer-reviewed sources is probably a safer bet than some of the others on the list, but she doesn't necessarily get more weight than other language scholars. I was looking over the sources and most of the ones used in this article are tertiary encyclopedic sources with one or two exceptions. Oddexit (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• I didn't delete the sentence—I moved it to the body. The lead is meant to summarize the body, and Gottlieb's statements were nowhere in the body. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Oops, so you did! I read your subject summary and noticed that it was deleted from the lead. Sorry about that. Yeah, I don't know if she deserves her own sentence or not but citing her is probably a safer bet for this type of article. Oddexit (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't doubt it, but the lead should give an birdseye view of the subject—she would have to be quite the towering figure on the subject to deserve mention in the lead. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

True. You make a good point. Thanks for the edit. Oddexit (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've just now commented out her address. That minor matter aside, she seems eminently citable, but I agree with both of you that citability in the lead is a different matter. -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

南蛮人、紅毛人、 異国人 、異邦人

The Portuguese in the 16th century were the first Europeans to visit Japan; they were called nanbanjin ("southern barbarians"). When British and Dutch adventurers such as William Adams arrived in the early 17th century, they were usually known as kōmōjin ("red-haired people"), a term cognate to one used in modern Hokkien Chinese.

When the Tokugawa shogunate was made to open Japan to foreign contact after two centuries of self-isolation, Westerners were commonly called as ijin ("different people"), a shortened form of ikokujin ("different country person") or ihōjin ("different motherland people"), terms earlier used for those from different feudal states within Japan.

Several sentences (above) have been uncited for years. Reading most of the original source material on gaijin, these words are not even mentioned. For POV and OR reasons, I'm not sure if they even belong in this article. But for the time being, I thought we could put these sentences on the talk page until someone can offer some useful source material linking their relevance to this article. Oddexit (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the other terms, but I've done some work on the Sadahide article recently, and the term "ikokujiin" shows up in a number fo sources to do with Yokohama-e. for instance, this, and a lot of the prints have "ikoku" or "ikokujin" in their titles: here's a search for "横浜絵　異国". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Gaikokujin mentioned 4 times

Would anyone mind if I edited the article and removed the repetitions? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Link to another Wiki page

Please, can someone link the Swedish Wikipedia page about the word Gaijin to the other pages? Here's the l Link TheWikipedian1250 (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Accent on gaikokujin

What's up with the accent on gaikokujin (gaikokújin)? Chininazu12 (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

References 2 to 6 either lead to personal links or dead links. They need to be removed

References 2 to 6 either lead to personal links or dead links. They need to be removed 24.17.90.178 (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Gaijin: consumption of feces shirt descriotion

I keep seeing that directly underneath the banner Gaijin. Can't seem to find where it's coming from in the code. 38.101.95.193 (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)