Talk:Gaijin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Discussion on the Intro section

Gaijin (外人) is a Japanese word meaning "foreigner." Gaijin is a short form of the full word gaikokujin (外国人). The words can refer to nationality or ethnicity. The word is often the subject of debate as to its appropriateness, particularly in its shortened form.

I agree with EB, going section by section is probably the best option ... this is a controversial topic no matter how it's sliced, so let's take it slow. I'm not sure about the sentence "Gaijin is a short form of the full word gaikokujin (外国人)" as this oversimplifies the possible etymology and nuances that "gaijin" as a stand-alone word contains. As the J-Wiki notes (e.g. 「外国人」の略語ではない「外人」には本来「仲間以外の人、外部の人」という意味もある), gaikokujin and gaijin are not perfect substitutes nor are they simply different forms of the same idea at different levels of formality. The issue of politeness goes beyond a simple formal/colloquial distinction. CES 18:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

For those who can't read that, it basically says, "Rather than being a shortened form of 'gaikokujin' (meaning "foreign person"), 'gaijin' comes from 'Nakama igai no hito, gaibu no hito,' meaning 'a person who is not a close friend or acquaintance.'" Hope that makes sense. (^_^) --日本穣 Nihonjoe 01:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

To further clarify and put that phrase into context, the beginning of the paragraph is as follows:

日本語においてポケットモンスターがポケモンになるなど略語は日本語の発音形式にあいまって非常に頻繁に使われる。よって英語のJapなどの表現と違い単に外国人が外人となるのは文法的に差別的な表現であるとはいえない。しかし「外人」が非日本人の意味で使われることもあいまって「外人」は「外国人」の単なる略語ではなく「仲間以外の人、外部の人」という意味があると主張される。これは個人おのおの主観による判断だが「外人」という呼称は単なる外国籍の人間をさすだけでなく、文字通り外の人、他人あるいは余所者といったニュアンスを含み、さらには「enemy」（敵）も含意する差別用語であるとし、この表現を疎む意見が外国人とくに欧米出身の外国人に多い。

Roughly translated: Due to the nature of the system of pronunciation in the Japanese language, abbreviations (such as "pokemon" for "pocket monster") are used frequently. Thus grammatically, unlike the English expression "Jap", the use of the abbreviation "gaijin" for "gaikokujin" does not imply discriminatory usage. However, in addition to the usage of "gaijin" to indicate non-Japanese, some people assert that it also has the meaning of "a person who is not a friend" or "outsider". This opinion is subject to individual interpretation, however in addition to describing people of foreign nationality, its alleged nuance of "outsider" or "stranger", and even "enemy", leads many foreigners (especially Europeans and Americans) to object to its use. I think this corresponds with EB's proposed introduction below. CES 02:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. How about "Gaikokujin is a Japanese word meaning "foreigner." Gaijin is a shortened form of this word, though it also has particular nuances that some see as offensive, and is often the subject of debate as to its appropriateness. The words can refer to nationality or ethnicity." Exploding Boy 18:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. CES 22:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds bad to me. And surprising, too. Offhand, I know nothing about the etymology of the two words, though my non-native intuition (of infinitesimal worth, of course) is that they're separate. What "the J-Wiki notes" (as cited by CES) is compatible with this intuition. Exploding Boy seems to ignore J-Wiki's explanation (on whose correctness I don't pass judgment) that the one isn't a shorter form of the other, and then CES agrees with him. Personally, I have no interest in the etymology of gaijin (and don't care whether I am labeled gaijin or gaikokujin); I'm also surprised that this word merits an article in en-Wiki. But if it does deserve an article, and if etymology is worth a mention within the article, then the etymology had better be right. -- Hoary 01:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, the modern perception is that "gaijin" is a short-hand form (ryakugo) of "gaikokujin", however "gaijin" also includes nuances that "gaikokujin" does not have. This corresponds with the lead sentence in the J-Wiki article: 外人（がいじん）は、一般には日本語の「外国人」の略語である。 Given the massive amount of ryakugo in Japanese I'm not really sure why this is surprising, but hopefully this comment makes things clearer. CES 01:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for some input by Vapour, who seems to have the most objections to the article. Exploding Boy 04:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, gaijin is a ryakugo (略語) of gaikokujin. Ryakugo=ShortenedForm is not an accurate translation and it imply inaccurate and biased connection to English usage of shortened form which is informal or worse. The translation of Ryakugo is either "abbreviation" or more accurately, "Acrynom" [1]．The origin of Ryakugo goes back to the introduction of Chinese character into Japanese language. Instead of taking the first alphabet, Japanese took the first chinese character of each words (which are often comprised of two or three characters) to make (Chinese character) acrynom. Because Chinese character is accompanied by one syllable which in Japanese phonetic system is transformed into two phonetic unit, it establish the rule of Japanese acrynom that the first one or two phonetic unit of each word is combined to create Japanese acrynom (Ryakugo). So Poket Monster become "Po-ke Mo-n", Gaikoku-jin become "Ga-i ji-n", Engine Stall become "E-n Su-to", Central League become "ce li-gu".

So I believe the correct introduction of this article should be

"Gaijin (外人) is a ryakugo (略語 Acrynom or abbreveation) of Gaikokujin (外国人) meaning "foreinger". In colloquial Japanese, use of ryakugo is almost a standard and for this reason, the word "gaijin" has aquired particular nuances relating to the way Japanese use the word to refer to foreigners, which some see as insensitive or offensive and is often the subject of debate as to its appropriateness. "

More detailed explanation of Ryakugo can be done in "Etymology" section. And this is why I was adamant that gainin=ShortenedForm=impolite is based on faulty knowledge of Japanese language. And this is one of many reason why I found Exploding Boy's complete rewrite of the previous stable version of the article to be unacceptable. Vapour

There are several dictionary of Ryakugo in Japanese, some of which specialise in medical, legal or scientific field. [2] Vapour

I have to say, I don't see a big difference in our proposed versions. They both indicate that "gaijin" is a shortened form of "gaikokujin," meaning "foreigner." They both say that "gaijin" has particular nuances that some find offensive. They both say that "gaijin" is the subject of debate. I do think that my version is a little clearer, but maybe that just comes down to English/style. If we can agree on this paragraph, then maybe we can move on to the next. Exploding Boy 07:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It make a difference because "ryakugo=shortned form" is incorrect especially given that in English there are shortened form and Acrynom. Ryakugo equivelant in English is Acrynom (e.g. U.N.=国連) not shortened form (e.g. jap, hypo, primmie). It was a harmless minor inaccuracy until you came along and rewrote the entire article on the basis that shortened form is an impolite expression. To justify your (incorrect) claim, you further resorted to your own (incorrect) understanding of Keigo (Formal language grammer), thus further adding inaccuracy in your edit in regard to Japanese language. At the same time, when you did your "complete rewrite", you eliminated or modified the content in previous version of the article which did not fit with your presumption. Because your initial premiss is faulty, any addition, deletion or modification based on this presumption is bound to result in incorrect or biased edit. For example, because "gaijin is somewhat impolite" under your presumption, you could claim that use of gaijin is a "deliberate" choise. This is equivelant to saying that if someone use U.N. instead of United Nation, that is done deliberately to be impolite. Claim of your neutrality and factual accuracy is bogus because the premise of your edit is verifiably wrong. Vapour

I think Vapour is reading something into "shortened form" that simply doesn't exist, in my mind at least. When I use the phrase "shortened form" I simply mean ... well, a form that is shorter than the original, with no pejorative intent. I believe acronym is too limiting (and my E-J dictionary translates acroynm as 頭字語). Can we agree on "abbreviation" as a compromise? I would strongly prefer not to see the word ryakugo in the intro, as this is a word that most English speakers are unfamiliar with, and I believe "abbreviation" (or "shortened form" or "shorthand", but let's not get into that) is an accurate translation. How about something like this for the introduction:

"Gaijin (外人) is an abbreviation of the Japanese word gaikokujin (外国人), meaning "foreigner." "Gaijin" has aquired particular nuances relating to the way Japanese use the word to refer to foreigners, which some see as insensitive or offensive and is often the subject of debate as to its appropriateness. The word can refer to nationality or ethnicity." CES

Vapour, in English, "shortened form" is not the same as "acronym." An acronym is when a word is created from the first letters of the major parts of a compound term, like LASER, which comes from Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. A shortened form simply means that something is made shorter. Perhaps the confusion comes from the Japanese term ryakugo (略語), which can mean both "short(ened) form" AND "acronym" in Japanese.

"Shortened form" is the same as "abbreviation." Thus, the shortened form of Monday would be "Mon." in English, and "getsu" in Japanese.

I don't see the value in using a (to most readers) unfamiliar Japanese term when a perfectly good, and correct, English one exists.

I'm afraid you're wrong on this one, Vapour, and we're not going to be able to get anywhere if we can't even agree on the first paragraph of the article. Again, I don't see any big differences in our proposed versions. Let's agree on the first paragraph so we can move on. I'll respond to your particular objections in the appropriate contexts (none of them are covered in this first paragraph).

This is my proposed first paragraph:

"Gaikokujin is a Japanese word meaning "foreigner." Gaijin is a shortened form of this word, though it also has particular nuances that some see as offensive, and is often the subject of debate as to its appropriateness. The words can refer to nationality or ethnicity."

Exploding Boy 15:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

One comment, if the article is going to be at "Gaijin", it'd probably be better to have "gaijin" as the lead word, rather than "gaikokujin". CES 16:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it really matters too much (especially given that our image is of the term "gaikokujin"), but here goes:

"Gaijin and gaikokujin are Japanese words meaning "foreigner." Gaijin is a shortened form of gaikokujin, though it also has particular nuances that some see as offensive, and is often the subject of debate as to its appropriateness. The words can refer to nationality or ethnicity."

Exploding Boy 19:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Your understanding of Japanese is at fault. Gai-jin is Kanji (Chinese Character) Acrynom of Gaikoku-jin. Your E-J dictionary is absolutely right in translating Acrynom as 頭字語 (Head Letter Word). In English, Acrynom (Head-Letter-Word) is formed by the first "alphabet" of each word while, in Japanese, Acrynom is formed by the first "kanji" (chinese character) for each word. So United Nation (国際 連合) become U.N. in English and 国連 in Japanese. This rule is then applied to imported Eurpropean words by taking first one or two phonetic sounds of each word (Po-ke Mo-n) as if it is a chinese character. In this case Gaikokujin comprise of two words, Gai koku (外国 Foreign) and Jin (人 person). Therefore, there is no other way to describe Gaijin anything other than Kanji (Chinese Character) Acrynom of Gaikokujin.

Moreover, this matter a lot because correct definition of Ryakugo undermine your entire edit and POV. You claimed that

"the construction gaikoku no kata (外国の方, roughly "a person from another country") is the most polite, followed by gaikokujin, with gaijin being the shortest, the most casual, and thus the least polite form."

and

"its use can be considered offensive in some circumstances, in part because it is a contraction (and thus less polite than other terms)"

This argument works only if gaijin is (incorrectly) defined as shortened form rather than Kanji Acryonom. You falsely argue that differentiating Gaikokujin and Gaijin is a part of Keigo (Formal language) differentiation hence making gaijin, "the shortned form "of gaikokujin, to be "the least polite form". But both "Gaijin no Kata" and "Gaikokujin no Kata" either in speech or in writing are correct Keigo. If someone say N.A.T.O istead of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, it is not informal or impolite. Gaijin/Gaikokujin differentiatiion is relevant to written/colloquial differentiation but it does not have relevance to Keigo which apply to "both" written and colloquial Japanese. Mostly importantly, you deliberately ommitted information that gaijin can be used in Keigo form such as "gaijin no kata", "gaijin san" and "gaijin no hito". And your faulty and biased edit invade every part of this article

"For example, while a non-Japanese person might not object to being referred to as gaikoku no kata (roughly, a person from another country), in some situations—such as a business setting—gaijin would be inappropriately informal."

The correct version is "gaijin and gaikokujin would be inappropriately informal" because no Keigo form is used.

"Since there are specific rules for polite speech in Japanese, and since Japanese people are sensitive to differences in nuance of different speech styles, the use of the word gaijin is usually deliberate, that is, it is either deliberately deployed as a pejorative—as in the terms baka-gaijin (stupid foreigner!) or gaijin-kusai (literally, "it stinks of foreigners""

When did using Acrynom like U.N. instead of United Nation become "delieberate" or "deliberately deployed as a pejorative"? And it again fail to disclose that baka-gaikokujin (stupid foreinger!) or gaikokujin-kusai (it stinks of foreingers) are equally projetive. Use of "stupid" and "stink" is deliberately projetive while use of the word foreigner either in English or Japanese is not.

"The term gaijin-san is akin to calling someone Mrs. Foreigner, and is therefore often perceived as rude."

"Gaijin-san" is a keigo differentiation. Only your agenda driven undestanding of Japanese would justify such claim.

Only part of this article which is "so so" is the part which isn't introduced or modified by your POV. Moreover, you deleted fair amount of content from 02/04/06 version of this article which did not fit with your faulty understanding of Japanese. It is fine if you are not fluent in Japanese. I'm not fluent in English myself. But to rewrite an article based on faulty understanding of language so to advance one's PC agenda is not o.k.

"Gaijin (外人) is the Kanji acronym of Gaikokujin (外国人) meaning "foreinger". In colloquial Japanese, use of acronym is almost a standard and for this reason, the word "gaijin" has aquired particular nuances relating to the way Japanese refer to foreigners in daily life, which some see as insensitive or offensive and is often the subject of debate as to its appropriateness. "

Vapour, first you are not helping the situation here. We are still trying to deal only with the first paragraph of this article! Please limit your discussion to that paragraph only in this section, so that we can move on and deal with the rest of the article. Second, you are mistaken about the terms you are using in English, as has been discussed both above and below. Please, comment on the opening paragraph only so we can continue editing. Exploding Boy 03:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, so do you have any more argument that gaijin is "not" kanji acronym of gaikokujin? In previous argument you were failing to recognise that Japanese acronym is done by kanji not by hiragana or katakana. CES's argument below is based on confusion of acronym (N.A.T.O) and initialism (SFUN) not to mention the failiure to recognise that Doc not Dr. is the contraction of the word Doctor. I can resort to English grammer book to prove it, if you insist. I'm quite sure I can easily find reference which categorically stated that contraction of words in English speech is informal, vulgar or projetive. Vapour

I have more definite disambiguation. Likes of Nato or Gaijin are examples of acronym abbreviation, the former being based on alphabet while the later being based on Chinese character. Likes of LOL or SFUN are examples of Initialism. Likes of Pokemon is an example of Syllabic abbreviation which in Japanese language is based on the rule of Kanji acronym. Likes of Jap, Doc, or Alex are examples of Apocope and here is wikipedia List of English apocopations. I don't think anyone would disagree that English apocopations are in general, more casual or informal, and in some instance, projetive compared to the original non abbreviated word. Vapour

Once again, I think you are confusing the issues, I think you are misunderstanding some basic English concepts, and I think you are muddying the waters. "Gaijin" cannot correctly be described as an acronym in English. Do you have any comments on the current proposal for this first paragraph, or can we edit the article and move on to the next paragraph? This is the currently proposed version:

"Gaijin and gaikokujin are Japanese words meaning "foreigner." Gaijin is a shortened form of gaikokujin, though it also has particular nuances that some see as offensive, and is often the subject of debate as to its appropriateness. The words can refer to nationality or ethnicity."

By the way, whether you think that "gaijin" is an acronym or not, the term "shortened form" is still applicable. Can we put this particular argument aside at least for the opening paragraph? Exploding Boy 03:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not even sure what Vapour is trying to argue. I don't believe that anyone is disputing the fact that there is nothing inherently pejorative about the use of "gaijin" as a ryakugo/abbreviation/acronym/shortened form of "gaikokujin." Yet some people find "gaijin" offensive. Are we not all in agreement here? So what is your point, Vapour? Is the only issue what to call "gaijin" -- "acronym", "abbreviation", "shortened form" etc.? I feel like we're all arguing the same point but still getting nowhere. CES 03:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

So do I, and I might add that if every paragraph is going to require this much discussion we're going to be here for months. I'd very much like to move on. Exploding Boy 03:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote this from acronym article.

"In English-language discussion of languages with syllable-based writing systems, such as Chinese, Japanese, and Korean, acronym describes short forms that take the first character of each (multi-character) element. For example, Beijing University—Beijing Daxue (literally, North-Capital Big-School)—is widely known as Beida (literally, North-Big). In describing such languages, the term initialism is irrelevant."

Why do you keep insisting that Beidai (北大) or Gaijin (外人) is not acronym when it is clearly written as such? Have you bother to read the article? Where is your verifiable source? Moreover, the argument that shortened form is still applicable is pointless. Sure, for example, I could write "a monkey is an animal". But how does this compared with "A monkey is any member of two of the three groupings of simian primates"? Shortened form (or abbreveation) is not an acceptable edit when gaijin is now clearly identified as acronym. Vapour

The problem is that Beidai and Gaijin are not what most people would consider English acronyms. Why stir up a debate on an essentially pointless issue? The first line of the acronym article says it all: "Acronyms and initialisms are abbreviations." Call it an abbreviation and be done with it. We are more interested in the characteristics of the monkey than the taxonomy of the monkey, so in this case it makes sense to just write "a monkey is an animal" (or in our case "gaijin is an abbreviation") and get on with talking about the monkeys. We all agree a monkey's an animal (if you believe gaijin is an acronym you must agree that it's an abbreviation), so let's start on common ground rather than argue a trivial point. CES 04:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not dodge the issue of whether "gai-jin (外人) is an kanji acronym of gaikoku-jin (外国人)". Are you still insisting that is not the case? And if so, what is your source? This is not the place for original research or opinion. Vapour

I'm rapidly getting tired of this. First of all, I remain unconvinced that "gaijin" is an acronym, besides which I think that describing "gaijin" as an acronym would only be confusing to the average reader (particularly when the distinction isn't even important to the subject). But in spite of that, this level of analysis of a three sentence paragraph is tiresome and unnecessary, particularly given that "shortened form" can correctly apply to acronyms!

Once again, here is the currently proposed first paragraph. Do we have consensus on it?

"Gaijin and gaikokujin are Japanese words meaning "foreigner." Gaijin is a shortened form of gaikokujin, though it also has particular nuances that some see as offensive, and is often the subject of debate as to its appropriateness. The words can refer to nationality or ethnicity."

Exploding Boy 04:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of this more than you. I have quoted from third party source which clearly indicate that "gaijin is a kanji acronym of gaikokujin." So you are not convinced personally. Fine. Keep it to yourself or do reading on language or linguistic. And it is incredible that an admin would insist on censorship verified information. There is no way I would find your inferior version acceptable. Vapour

Vapour, if you continue to refuse to comment on this particular paragraph, we're going to have to move on without you. This page has grown by another 40kb in the last---what?---2 days alone. Exploding Boy 04:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have indicated my preference for "gaijin (外人) is a kanji acronym of gaikokujin (外国人)". I object to any atempt to cencor information which was verified by third party source. Do you agree that "gaijin is an kanji acronym of gaikokujin" is verified. In fact, I would rather prefer if this is brought to dispute resolution. I have my source. You don't. Vapour

Currently consensus, such as it is, is against the use of the term "acronym" for the reasons already given. In English (the language of this article, let's remember), "abbreviation" means "a shortened form of a written word or phrase used in place of the whole." "Acronym" means "a word (as NATO, radar, or snafu) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a compound term; also : an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters : INITIALISM." "Abbreviation" or "shortened form" are the correct terms here. We need to move on. Exploding Boy 05:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikiepdia is not a democracy and if you say you are an admin, you ought to know this. And you have ignore the article about acronym which clearly stated that use of acronym is not limited to English language. How could an admin ignore the fact that the third party source indicated that gaijin is an acronym? Vapour

Sigh. No, Wikipedia is not a democracy. However, we do do things by consensus. I'd also point out that we don't use other Wikipedia articles as reliable sources (and Wikipedia articles don't count as a "third party source"). Can I suggest that we substitute "abbreviation" instead of "shortened form" or "acronym" (you yourself used the word in a previous suggestion) and move on to the next section? Maybe when we've discussed some of the other issues all of this will become clearer. What do you think of that?

To be clear, here is the paragraph I'm proposing:

"Gaijin and gaikokujin are Japanese words meaning "foreigner." Gaijin is an abbreviated form of gaikokujin, though it also has particular nuances that some see as offensive, and is often the subject of debate as to its appropriateness. The words can refer to nationality or ethnicity."

Exploding Boy 05:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you accept that if I quote from a wikipedia verifiable source which state that combining the first chinese character of words is acronym, then you have no ground to oppose an edit which chage "gaijin is a shortened form" to "gaijin is a kanji acronym"? You are somewhat fluent in japanese so you know this is the case. But if you still demand verification, I will give it to you just so that we can end this dispute according to wikipedia policies. If you say otherwise, you are no longer participating in this debate under wikipedia rules so I will rather take this to dispute resolution process. Vapour

Let me ask you something. Can you give me an example of a Japanese term that you think is a "shortened" or "abbreviated" form but not an acronym?

By the way, this page is already in the dispute resolution system. I listed it on Requests for Comment a few days ago. Exploding Boy 06:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Pokemon, ensuto and seligu (central league), whic are all examples of Syllabic abbreviation rather than kanji acronym. Just that kanji acronym often amount to sylabic abbrevation due to the nature of Chinese (onyomi). But when acroym is done with kanji which follow Japanese pronounciation (kunnyomi), then kanji acronym is not syllabic abbreviation. And if you see Japanese wikipedia about ryakugo (略語), it is stated something like "(syllabic) abbrebation of English words tend to be considered as Zoku (俗, vulgar and/or informal), though this is not always the case." And you have not answered my question. Would you accepte a reference from wikipedia verified source (I'm thinknig something like Encycropedia Britainica) as authority on this matter?Vapour

I'd certainly like to see the source (and I'm not sure Encyclopaedia Britannica is the best source on Japanese linguistics, but I'll reserve judgement for now). I'm still not convinced, however, but more importantly I still don't think that this is issue is centrally important to the article. As far as I'm concerned it's at best a curiosity, and it has no bearing at all on the substance of the article. The article does not argue that "gaijin" is pejorative because it's a shortened form. That's why I'd like to move on and discuss some of the other sections. Right now, though, I'm going to bed. More tomorrow. Exploding Boy 07:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Anything written by (academic) linguist is the "best" source on acronym. If such article refer to usage of kanji acrony in CJK language, that is suppose to be final unless someone else bring another article written by some other linguist disagreing with such view. Then we can make POV disambiguation. And why do you insist on keeping it to shortened form rather than kanji acronym? It is ridiculous to insist in encycropedia editing that chage of already existing edit (shortened form) to more accurate (kanji acronym) one is not important, irrelevant or undesirable. And if it is, as you say, not important/relevant, what is wrong with chaging it. You say you are somewhat fluent in Japanese so you know that gaijin is a kanji acrynom. You know I will find a wikipedia verified reference if not from Britanica then from other reference written by an academic. Let leave at it until I do. Vapour

See discussion on this issue at the bottom of the page. Exploding Boy 01:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"The words can refer to nationality or ethnicity." Slightly confusing because foreinger isn't really a nationality or ethincity. Does anyone have a problem with changing it to "The words refer to someone's non Japanese nationality or ethincity"? Vapour

It sounds more natural to say "the words refer to a person's (non-Japanese) nationality or ethnicity." Exploding Boy 06:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fine to me. Vapour

Which is more "neutral" version

Exploding Boy is adamant that his "complete rewrite" is "more neutral version" than the one he replaced. Obviously he believe what he is doing is more neutral and accurate. But given that the 02/04/06 version has been fairly stable and has had more input from many editors while Exploding Boy's version has only been around short period with minor input from few not to mention my protestation that his rewrite is biased and factually inaccurate, the most neutral, or rather less biased toward personal view (me or exploding boy) is to revert to the state before Exploding Boy introduced his "complete rewrite". I don't have objection to Exploding Boy trying to recover content of his version of the article into the old version as long as such attempt is up for debate. Vapour

I can't find anything that bleeds to be changed; the only thing that really seems odd here is the excess of information in some sections which gives it an air of bias. Nobody (hopefully Vapour included) will argue that the term is never controvercial, but I don't believe the section on controversy should take up more than half of the article. More strict info and less wordy attempts to defend points would keep the article from being disputed in the future.

One more point on the issue discussed above. Whether or not the origin of the word is 外国人 or 仲間以外の人 as JWP claims, the fact remains that the majority of Japanese people believe it is a simple abbreviation of the former, and thus the effective controversial-ness of the word doesn't really sting so much. I could argue more but I guess I'm with Hoary on this one in that I don't really care how you explain it.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Exploding Boy's complete rewrite is based on his understanding of Japanese language whose fault is fairly obvious to a native speaker. Just that a native speaker like myself can feel something is seriously wrong but not necessaly explain it. Took a while for me to figure out that his definition of ryakugo is incorrectly mixed with usage of shortened word in English. And that mistake was compounded by his misunderstanding of Japanese formal speech (Keigo) which is complex even for Japanese. He did not know that Japanese ryakugo, whose usage is somewhat similar to shortened word in English, is actually equivelant to Acrynom in English. Similarity of usage of Japanese acrynom with English shortened word is due to the fact that Japanese acrynom is based on usage of Chinese Character rather than alphabet. I also edited gaijin article in japanese wikipedia. So I guess reference to Japanese wikipedia wouldn't be neutral. Vapour

Vapour, that's the whole point of doing a section-by-section analysis of what we have here. I agree with FG, the "controversy" section is ridiculously long, but other than that there is nothing egregiously bad here. I think Vapour is overemphasizing the ryakugo issue ... given the large number of (non-offensive) abbreviations and acronyms in English, I believe that ryakugo make intuitive sense to the English-speaker. What is the heart of the debate is not the etymology of the word "gaijin" but rather the nuances and meanings that the word has as a standalone word. Let's continue to go section-by-section, hopefully this will clear up points of contention and defuse a potential edit war. CES 12:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see my response at the end of the section immediately above regarding ryakugo/short(ened) form/abbreviation/acronym. By the way, I've read your changes to the Japanese article, and... wow. While I certainly understand your point of view better, I think you're suffering from several misapprehensions, in particular with regards to the words "Jap" and "Paki" and the role of shortened forms in the English language. Exploding Boy 15:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Good catch, I think this might be the root of the problem. Vapour, you're making an artificial distinction between acronyms, shortened forms of words, and abbreviations when none exists, in addition to giving acronyms a wider definition than they usually have (I'm no linguist, but I believe most would agree with the statement that acronyms are simply a type of abbreviation/shortened form of a word). You imply that acronyms are formal/polite whereas shortened forms are informal/impolite. This is not the case. Some acronyms are formal/polite, others aren't. For example, you might hear/see "U.N." on the news, but probably not "LOL" or "SNAFU." Some shortened forms are impolite ("Jap"), others aren't (the use of "Dr." for "Doctor"). "Jap" is not offensive just because it's a shortened form of "Japanese," it's offensive because of the meanings it has as a stand-alone word. People do not object to "gaijin" because it is a shortened form of "gaikokujin." They object because they think the word itself implies outsider--or some other kind of discriminatory--status. The word's origins are irrelevant. CES 21:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm stating that usage of Acrynom itself is neutral. It could be informal if the original words are informal or composed Acrynom is somewhat vulgar such as "A.R.S.E". Since Gaikokujin is neutral, acrynom of gaikokujin cannot be claimed to be impolite by the fact of being acrynom. As of LOL or SFU, it's informality is based on its original words. Moreover, these word are developed for the convenience of typing over internet communication, relatively new phenomenon, while traditional acrynom is mainly developed for convenience in both speech and writing. For this reason, likes of LOL or SFU are considered as somewhat new and separate type of Acrynom, that is if linguist now recognise it as such. Moreover, English langage do consider contracted word to be more infornal. It is wrong to describe Dr. to be contraction of the word Doctor regarding the topic we are discussing. "Dr." is contraction in writing/spelling/typing Doctor. In fact, the contraction of the word "doctor" is not "Dr." but "Doc", which is informal. In census statistics, Japanese are sometimes written as Jp. This is not informal, vulgar or projetive. But Jap is vulgar and projetive because it is the contraction of the word itself rather than shortened way to spell it. I have explained in above section why gaijin is acronym of gaikokujin and how disambiguation redarding this matter has distorted the article. Vapour

P.S. Likes of LOL or SFUN are examples of Initialism and are distinguished from Acronym. The main difference is that these examples of initialism are not meant to be used in speech. Vapour

[Bouncing to the left to save space] (1) I believe that the word you want is acronym. (2) The word acronym perhaps does not mean quite what you think it (or "acrynom") means. (3) It's rather well known that etymology is not a reliable guide to denotation, let alone to connotation. -- Hoary 02:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my Engrish. And I'm correct in describing gaijin as a kanji acronym of gaikokujin. And correct understanding of language in term of etymology or grammer or usage is a way to write this article with NPOV. Vapour

The original version is much better. And get rid of all the bullshit original research. --Saintjust 03:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Vapour wrote: "Jap is vulgar and projetive because it is the contraction of the word itself rather than shortened way to spell it."

I'm afraid you're wrong, and I also think you're getting too hung up on this particular issue, rather than trying to reach some consensus on the specific paragraphs of the article (see previous section).

The word "Jap" (meaning "Japanese"), like the word "Abo" (meaning "Aboriginal"), is pejorative not because it is a shortened form, but because it has a history of being used pejoratively. Compare these words with "Ozzie/Aussie" ("Australian") and "Brit" ("British"). Neither of these words is pejorative, despite being shortened forms. Nevertheless, it would be inappropriate to use these terms in certain situations, not because they are short, but because they are too informal.

The point about "gaijin" vs. "gaikokujin" is that shorter forms are less formal, and thus less polite. This is an established fact in Japanese, and I don't see how you can be unaware of it. Put simply, more polite forms tend to be longer. Without wanting to get into a long discussion about keigo, which in any case isn't appropriate here, the longer the construction, the more polite it is perceived as being.

For example:

(Less formal/polite) --> --> --> --> --> (More formal/polite)

To eat: kuu --> --> taberu --> --> meshiagaru --> --> o-meshiagari ni naru

To see: miru --> --> goran --> --> goran ni naru

To go/come: iku/kuru --> --> irassharu

To give: yaru --> --> ageru --> --> sashiageru

This is borne out by the media convention, which is that gakokujin is the preferred form, and government policy, which is also that gakokujin is the preferred form. That's why foreign residents must have a gaikokujin tōrokusho, not a gaijin tōrokusho.

At the same time, I don't think anyone is saying that "gaijin" is pejorative because it is a shortened form, rather that the word "gaijin" (1) is less formal, thus less polite in some situations, (2) has particular connotations and is used pejoratively in some situations.

Exploding Boy 03:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point that apocopation of word make the word more informal which made it the "choise" expression whenenver nationality or ethincity is refered in projetive context. Your edit in this article that gaijin is somewhat projetive because gaijin is shortened from, i.e. less polite, is exactly done in the line of this argument. That is why you are so obsessed with maitainng "gaijin is shortened form" edit over clearly verifed version of "gaijin is kanji acronym of" which ruin your argument because acronym is not apocopation. Your claim that the difference is trivial is laughable. This is the holy grail of your "complete rewrite". Vapour

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say, and you don't seem to understand what I'm saying either. Besides, it's already been explained to you that "shortened form" includes "acronym." Exploding Boy 05:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And shortened form include acronym (neutral) and "apocopation" (informal) which make it easier to muddle the issue and bring in your argument that gaijin is informal. Gaijin can be used in Keigo speech which is the definition of formality in Jpanapese language. The difference between gaijin and gaikokujin is written and colloquial not formal and informal. And written form can be as vulagar as or more vulgar than colloqual form depending of writer. I have already verified that gaijin is an acronym. So you have no case whatsoeve in term of wikipedia policies to deny the insertion of this verified and more accurate information. If we accept the argument that "a mokey is an animal" is prefered to "a monkey is a primate" this place will cease to be an encycropedia. Vapour

External links

Wondering what all the fuss was about -- or rather, why a single Japanese word that's little used outside Japan merits an entire article in what's supposed to be an English-language encyclopedia -- I clicked on the external link billed as "Is the word 'Gaijin' derogatory? - A discussion by expatriates" (it's this). In it, some person calling him/herself "Mandrake" (a Linux user? who knows) kicks off a "discussion" by making various unsupported assertions about the relationship between gaijin, etc., and "foriegners" or "foriengers" (spelling is not Mandrake's forte). Mandrake doesn't even distinguish between (a) the question of whether gaijin is intended as pejorative, and (b) the question of whether people find gaijin pejorative when used to referred to them. So what kind of "discussion" of gaijin follows this? It's spread across two web pages (at least as I read it), and on the first, there's almost no discussion at all, but rather miscellaneous amiable blather about the perceived offensiveness of farang, etc. On the second page (as I see it), "Yohan", who appears to be Japanese, states that gaijin is not [intended as] offensive. And that's it.

This seems to me an excellent example of the kind of external link that adds nothing.

I don't argue that Japanese society is, in various ways, seriously screwed up. (For example, the systemic discrimination against women, who even now are widely viewed as decorative -- or, sadly, failing to be decorative -- and disposable.) And I don't deny that the word gaijin is (rightly or wrongly) often perceived to be pejorative. (I've a hunch that a major reason is that new arrivals in Japan are told by earlier arrivals, whose command of Japanese is often poor, that it's pejorative; and they know that because they were told the same thing when they arrived.)

Well, go ahead, preserve this article. But I suggest trimming the links to those that say something lucidly and persuasively. (Another link tells us, inter alia, that "GAIKOKUJIN AND GAIJIN ARE PROBLEM WORDS THAT ARE TOO EASILY ABUSED, AND PEOPLE MUST BE TOLD THAT WHEN THEY ABUSE THEM" -- yes, all in full capitals.) -- Hoary 01:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Those particular links might be inappropriate, but this word arouses a lot of controversy; that's why both the English and Japanese Wikipedias have articles on it. Exploding Boy 03:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Gaijin" gets over 2 million Google hits ... I think that alone indicates its worthiness as an article candidate. CES 03:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah well, "paris hilton" probably gets 2 squillion Google hits.

I clicked on the Japan Times link. I needed to register. Sorry, can't be bothered.

I clicked on the "Crisscross" link. It's like the maunderings of a group of gai -- whoops, I mean foreigners who aren't all that bright or interesting, during a beer. There's a link on it to the full thread: I clicked and waited but nothing happened. So I was left with a page whose last message included the nugget To all you english teachers ask your students if it is ok for people in other countries to call travelling Japanese Gaijin. Nothing like a taste of your own medicine. Yes every time a japanese in australia speaks stupid english, i will laugh and say "listen to how stupid that gaijin speaks english, hahahahhhahaha" Now that is funny, ill make sure i have digital camera to take a snap shot of their face. :( To which my only rejoinder is "Zzzz".

Is this a subject on which people have written things that are worth reading? I mean, what percentage of the 2 million hits merely point to barroom blather? -- Hoary 03:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say somewhat more NPOV external link would be an internet forum for English speaking gaijin (i.e. English speaking foreign resident in Japan). I don't know if such a forum exist but it would be useful to anyone who read this article. If someone want to find a thread discussing "gaijin rude or not" topic, that is up to him/her. Vapour

But these are internet forums for English-speaking gaijin, and they show that the kind of English-speaking gaijin who frequent them are people who express rather trite ideas in an uninteresting way. As I go through this stuff (I mean, before sleepiness overcomes me), I see no insight, let alone knowledge. I don't even see any interesting anecdotes. So the forum links merely provide evidence that a number of gaijin are grumpy about the term "gaijin". Perhaps they should come with warnings (analogous to {{ja icon}}, etc.): "{{mere_blather}}". -- Hoary 23:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

In this edit, some IP reverts my removal of a link, and appears to term it "censorship" because "The discussion is valid". I don't know what "valid" means here. What I'd like to know is how this "discussion" whose link has just been reinserted is substantive. What light does it shed on the usage of this word gaijin? -- Hoary 06:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Etymology and history section

In the interests of moving this discussion forward and getting on with editing the article, I'd like to know whether anyone has any objections to this section as it is. If not, then let's move on to the next section. Exploding Boy 06:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The Etymology and history section reads as follows (I've made some very minor changes for English):

"Gaikokujin (literally "outside-country-person") and its shortened form, gaijin, are relatively new words in Japanese. Historically, the Portuguese, the first Europeans to visit Japan, were known as Nanbanjin (南蛮人 literally: "southern barbarians"), because their ships came sailing in from the south, and because these sailors were perceived as unrefined by the Japanese. When British and Dutch adventurers such as William Adams arrived in Japan fifty years later in the early 17th century, they were usually known as kōmōjin (紅毛人, literally "red-haired people").

When the Tokugawa shogunate was forced to open Japan to foreign contact, Westerners were commonly referred to as ijin (異人 literally "different person"), a shortened form of ikokujin (異国人 literally "different country person") or ihōjin (異邦人 literally: "different motherland person") which were previously used for Japanese from different feudal (that is, foreign) states. Keto (毛唐, combining the characters for T'ang China and (red) hair) was used as a pejorative reference.

After the Meiji Restoration, the Meiji government introduced the term gaikokujin to refer to foreigners, and this gradually replaced ijin, ikokujin and ihōjin. As the empire of Japan extended to Korea and Taiwan, the term naikokujin (内国人 literally "inside country person") was used to refer to nationals of other territories of the Empire. While this term fell out of use after World War II, gaikokujin remained as the official government term for non-Japanese people, and other terms fell from use."

The same problem with "shortened form". Aside from that, the rest of information looks fine to me. Vapour

Ok, well let's move on to the next section then, ok? I'm going to C&P the above into the article just to improve the English, but without making any other changes. Exploding Boy 06:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I hate to be a jerk about this, but you should probably mention the use of gaijin in kogo meaning an enemy or hostile person. At least, you need to remove the bunk about gaijin being a recent addition to the Japanese language, as it has to be at least as old as the Heike Monogatari. Ultimately, though, I don't really see the point of this article.

Edit war

Just a note to let y'all know, please stop the edit war. If it continues, the article will be protected on whatever version it was at. Discuss. --Golbez 06:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no edit war going on, as can be seen from the lengthy, lengthy discussion we're having in an effort to acheive consensus. Exploding Boy 06:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

And neither side is resorting to "edit" now. The discussion is heated but that is all. Vapour

And I like that, I like seeing discussion going on. But if there is still edit warring occurring even while discussion is going on, that doesn't mean the article won't get protected. --Golbez 19:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk to User:Saintjust. At present, I see no good reason for the article to be protected. Exploding Boy 19:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Usage section

Ok, the Etymology section has been (slightly) updated, although we still need to reach agreement on "shortenend form." Leaving that aside for the moment, let's move on to the Usage section. Exploding Boy 06:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

At present, here's what it looks like:

"In Japanese, the shortening of long words is common in colloquial usage. However, once the usage of the term become popular and its colloquial meaning become widely recognised, the longer form of the word completely drop out from the usage. For example Enjin Sutoru (Engine Stall) became "Ensuto" in Japanese and, in current usage, "ensuto" is not only the standard reference in oral conversation, it is the standard reference in written form. The similar usage in english are words such as NATO or DVD, which serve the similar purpose."

I propose that this paragraph is replaced with fuller explaination of the differnce between syllabic abbrevation, apocapation and acronym so one can gain clear insight to where gaijin abbrevation stand on in term of linguistic. I understand that EB believe this particular kanji acronym is impolite. I say it is colloquial but not impolite. But this disagreement is a separate issue from whether gaijin is an kanji acronym or not.Vapour

First, could you please leave a space between the post/paragraph you are commenting on and your remarks? It makes it easier to find your comments when responding.

Second, I think this paragraph needs a major revision also, since it's both awkward (in terms of English) and not quite correct. You (Vapour) said yourself that "ensuto" and "gaijin" are different types of abbreviation. Also, I have never said that "gaijin" is always and only impolite, only that in the spectrum of formal/polite language, "gaijin" comes somehwere near the bottom--it is the least formal (= most colloquial), thus the least polite. This doesn't necessarily equal "the most rude." What it does mean, however, is that its use in certain situations (such as a business setting, for example) would be inappropriate. You're right, this is a separate issue from whether or not the terms is an "acronym." It's also a separate issue from whether the term "gaijin" is sometimes pejorative. Exploding Boy 19:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"in the spectrum of formal/polite language, "gaijin" comes somehwere near the bottom" is incorrect premise. the word "gaijin" itself does not come within the spectrum of formal/polite language. In fact, by saying "gaijin san", "gaijin no kata", "gaijin no hito", gaijin (and gaikokujin) can be at any point within spectrum of formal/polite language. Vapour

Not true, and also not really relevant. We're talking specifically about "gaijin" here. Gaikokujin is not normally a problematic term. Gaijin-san is discussed in the Controversy section. Exploding Boy 07:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"Thus, the construction gaikoku no kata (外国の方, roughly "a person from another country") is the most polite, followed by gaikokujin, with gaijin being the shortest, the most casual, and thus the least polite form. There are subtle differences in nuance in the choice of phrasing."

"Gaikokuno kata"->"gaikokujin"->"gaijin" is incorrect description of Japanese keigo. Correct description of the keigo is "gaikokujin no kata" -> "gaikokujin no hito" -> "gaikokujin" and "gaijin no kata" -> "gaijin no hito" -> "gaijin". Hence both simple "gaikokujin" and "gaijin" without "kata:" or "hito" would be non keigo expression and thus considered to be rude in refering to your foreign client, for example. The entire paragraph is based on incorrect premise so it ought to be deleted. If EB feel there are other example of usage which show that gaijin is impolite, fine. Do it somewhere else. Just don't do it with faulty description of keigo. Vapour

Actually, it's interesting that you bring that up. In fact, "gaikokujin no kata" and "gaikokujin no hito" aren't really grammatical. They are both cases of hypercorrection, meaning that when people use these constructions, they are doing so in an effort to be more polite (by making the phrases longer). The same applies to "gaijin no kata/hito." Exploding Boy 18:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It is not grammatical in English but it is grammatical in Japanese. In this instance, gaijin or gaikokujin is used like adjective/adverb. Just run a google and you will find how common this type of usage is. For example, "Toudaisei no kata" (person of university of tokyo student). (posted by User:Vapour)

Not really the same type of construction. "Toudaisei" really means "Tokyo daigaku no gakusei," or "a student of Tokyo University." "Toudaisei no kata/hito" is really more like "a person who is a student of Tokyo University," which is also perfectly grammatical in English. Compare the grammatically weird constructions "onna no ko no hito" or "otoko no hito no kata," which are more similar to "gaikokujin no hito/kata." Exploding Boy 07:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend deleting (or drastically reducing) the above two paragraphs. This is not an article on ryakugo or keigo; I believe the explanation in the intro that "gaijin" is an informal/colloquial abbreviation of "gaikokujin" is sufficient. The above two paragraphs add little about the usage of "gaijin" (in fact they have the potential to confuse more than inform). In the interest of parsimony, I'd suggest cutting them. CES 15:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It is an article on gaijin. And gaijin was defined as a ryakugo/ShortenedForm/KanjiAcronym. Therefore, explanation of ryakugo/shortenedform/kanjiacronym is by definition, relevant. And because the controversy is about projetive/politicalcorrectness, keigo reference is relevant. I also do not think it can be justify on the ground of online encycropedia. In encycropedia, confusion is solved by fuller explanation, not by censorship. By wikipedia standard, this article is quite short.(posted by User:Vapour)

"Additionally, while all forms of the word mean "foreigner," in practice gaikokujin and gaijin are used mainly to refer to white people, while Asian people and other non-whites are usually referred to by their country of origin: Chūgoku-jin (中国人, Chinese person), Kankoku-jin (韓国人, Korean person), Indo-jin (インド人, Indian person), and so on."

More improved version is to say "gaijin are used to refer to non East Asian". Iranian[3], Arab[4], African[5], Indian[6] are all refered as gaijin. Indo-jin refer to people of indian subcontinent rather than people from republic of India. These reference is as frequent as Seiyoujin or Oubeijin meaning Westerners. Vapour

Agreed. CES 15:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with this too, although I still question how common it is to refer non-whites as "gaijin." I've more often heard black people referred to as kokujin, for example, so ideally I'd like to see some more discussion of this. Still, if we place the citations in line, I think we're fine. Exploding Boy 19:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

From my experience, it is common for non-whites to be called "gaijin" just as it is not unusual for whites to be called "hakujin." I think it depends on the context and whether race/ethnicity/nationality is being specifically highlighted or not. CES 21:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is quite possible to collect statistics on colloqual reference of kokujin, gaijin or seiyoujin. So we just have to leave it at what we can recognised as fact from NPOV.(posted by User:Vapour)

However, we have an acadmic source that says one thing, and some other (online?) sources that say something else. We need to strike a balance between the two. Exploding Boy 07:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"People of Japanese descent living in or born in foreign countries are known as Nikkei-jin (persons of Japanese descent), while children of mixed (Japanese and non-Japanese) parentage are known as hāfu ("half")."

I propose that this edit is shifted to controversy section because the entire relevance of this information is about the bullying some of these kids suffer. And Racism and Bullying belong to controversy section. Vapour

I think this should stay ... although I understand the underlying issues involved, I'm not really sure what this specific description of usage has to do with bullying. It might be nice to have an additional sentence or phrase that indicates these are people who are not called gaijin, to make it fit in the gaijin-usage section a little more smoothly. CES 15:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think it should stay. I think we can take up discrimination issues to do with people of mixed heritage in the controversy section if we think it's needed there and it fits, or we can just leave it out (since this article is about "gaijin"). This paragraph simply illustrates that there are different Japanese terms for different types of "foreigners." Exploding Boy 19:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying this section should be deleted. I'm saying that the reference of this information be transfered and to be expanded in controversy section. There are incidents of mixed kids being bullied in school with gaijin reference and "That's 70's Show" reference are in Controversy section too. Vapour

I think it can be expanded on in the Controversy section (if necessary), but should be introduced here. Exploding Boy 07:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"The term gaijin is also used as a form of address in some situations, in which case it is commonly combined with the honorific -san, meaning, roughly, mister, miss, or Mrs. Gaijin-san may also be used as a politer alternative to gaijin or gaikokujin."

Generally fine. we could add that san has more friendlier tone than Mr/Mrs/Miss. Vapour

Well, I'd like to see your proposed wording for that. Also, I don't think we should stray too far into the territory already covered at Japanese titles. Exploding Boy 19:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, how about "-san, meaning, roughly, mister, miss, or Mrs thought it is more friendlier reference." It is quite obvious given that it is rude to refer your teacher or boss with san reference while Oba (Aunt) become Obasan (Auntie). Some (unmarried) couple refer each other with san reference too.

Still rather awkward. Teachers are referred to by the title sensei because Japanese language tends to prefer to address people by title (see the Japanese title article for a better explanation). Also, wouldn't it be more correct to say that Obasan ("aunt") becomes Obachan ("auntie")? I don't really agree with you that "san" is "friendlier" than Mr/Mrs/Miss, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say. Exploding Boy 07:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"The use of gaijin is not limited to "foreigners" in Japan; Japanese speakers commonly refer to non-Japanese as gaijin even when on trips overseas."

Add "because the reference of foreinger is based on Japanese perspective." at the end Vapour

Agreed, it's more an issue of perspective than actual physical location. CES 15:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well.... Ok.... I mean, this is an article about a Japanese term.

Shouldn't this be obvious from the article? It sounds slightly awkward to me. Exploding Boy 19:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Vapour's point is that from a Japanese perspective, a gaijin is a gaijin no matter where the Japanese observer non-Japanese subject pair is. This is a contrast to English usage of "foreigner" ... Although I can picture it happening, it's not very culturally sensitive for an American to go to Europe and say "look at all the foreigners!" whereas it would be far from surprising to hear a Japanese person go overseas and say the same with respect to "gaijin." CES 21:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, but we're not talking about cultural sensitivity, but about usage. In English that usage would be inappropriate because when one is in a foreign country one is, in fact, a foreigner. Exploding Boy 21:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Which is my (and I believe Vapour's) point ... that even though "gaijin" is usually translated as foreigner, usage does differ between these words. Use of "foreigner" is relative to where the speaker and object are present whereas "gaijin" is a more general Japanese vs. non-Japanese distinction where context is irrelevant. To a Japanese person I am a "gaijin" whether I am in Japan or the US. To an American a Japanese person is a "foreigner" only in the US. I think this is an interesting and potentially important distinction that bears mention, especially as the lead sentence translates "gaijin" as "foreigner." CES 01:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that. I just thought it was clear from the article. Exploding Boy 02:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just scanning the article, I didn't see anything that specifically makes note of this usage difference between "gaijin" and "foreigner" ... for people who are not as familiar with the case of Japan, it might be a good idea to clarify. Either way, it's a minor point but as we are taking the time to go section-by-section I thought I'd mention it. The bigger issue is what to do with the beginning of this section ... Vapour wants to expand it, I would like to shrink it. Any thoughts? CES 03:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the difference between English and Japanese usage, extra information is helpful imo. But I do remember a English costume drama (can't remember the title) where English youth in Grand tour in Italy refer Italians as foreigners. Vapour

Yes, but given that it's a costume drama I think we can agree this isn't a common usage. Reminds me of how the British used to refer to Indians as "the natives." Exploding Boy 07:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Shortened form/contraction/abbreviation/acronym ...etc...

I happened upon this source today:

Quote:

Foreigners in Japan complain about the use of the 'gaijin' to refer to them and have done since at least the late 1980s. When Japanese use this term . . . they often mean specifically western foreigners rather than other Asians or Africans. The two characters of the word mean 'outside person'; it is a contraction of the word gaikokujin, literally "person from anothter country." Gaikokujin is uncontroversial and simply means a person who does not hold Japanese citizenship; it is the more common contracted version that has been the subject of irritated complaint: people may be pointed at by children and have the word gaijin either shouted or whispered . . . At a deeper level, though, it is the connotation of exclusion and oddity that irks, particularly when the term is combined with the adjective hen na to mean 'peculiar foreigner,' a term once often heard on Japanese television shows. The term gaijin itself is included these days by most braodcasters on their list of terms best avoided" (117-118, bold emphasis added).

Nanette Gottlieb, "Representation and Identification: Discriminatory Language," in Language and Society in Japan. Cambridge University Press, 2005

Exploding Boy 01:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Whew. At last, something worth reading.

The "controversy" angle of this long WP article seems feeble to me. No source is stipulated for it. As for the external links, one that I looked at yesterday is pretty much a rant. One I looked at yesterday is mere chitchat, most of which isn't even about the word gaijin: I thus deleted it (and explained this above) but some IP has just now indignantly restored it. Another link is to a number of messages to the Japan Times; I hadn't quite realized just how inane such messages could be and still get "printed". The messages are about two articles here (needs registration). One of these sets off: Before I start, let's get one thing straight: I am well aware that the term "gaijin" has pejorative overtones and that its etymology is grounded in a history of discrimination and exclusion (no argument, just an assertion). The other says The term gaijin was originally used to refer to other Japanese who weren't part of the "inside" group, yet these days the term applies exclusively to foreigners -- again with no evidence.

There's nothing much wrong with newspapers paying columnists to write about their notions of the pluses and minuses of use of the term gaijin, or with their providing space for their readers to provide such aperçus as I don't think all of us mean anything bad when we call a foreigner gaijin. But there is no other word to call foreigners, so what can we do? (really!). And I suppose it's evidence for a claim that some gaijin do and others don't get worked into a tizzy by use of the term gaijin. But it says pretty much nothing about the term. If the term is worth an article in something purporting to be an encyclopedia, let's have some sourced facts (as it is, no source is specified for anything in the history section) and base the stuff on "controversy" not on message-board mutterings but on intelligent, informed exposition, which is what I hope one gets from a book titled Language and Society in Japan that's put out by Cambridge University Press. I don't have the book here; over to you, EB. -- Hoary 11:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, what can I say? I agree, the article needs more sources. On the other hand, I think that in some cases links of the sort you mention might (might) be worth including in an article like this, simply to highlight the amount of ongoing debate about this term.

This entire article really represents an attempt to cover the current debate about the term in a manner that's neutral (neither skewed to the "pro" side --- the previous version contained a very long section entitled "Political correctness" (yeah, that's neutral) --- nor to the "anti" side).

Some of it has been taken from the Japanese Wikipedia article on the same topic, some from the previous English language versions of the article, and some from general knowledge of the topic. Yes. The entire article needs more sources.

The point of posting this source was to show that (1) there is a debate on this particular term, (2) the author --- writer of several books on Japanese language, and, according to Camridge UP, a "leading authority in this field" --- calls gaijin a "contraction," not an "acronym" (the subject of some debate on this page), (3) the term "gaijin" is used primarily to describe westerners, and (4) the term has pejorative connotations.

By the way, Nanette Gottlieb is Reader in Japanese and head of the School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies at the University of Queensland. Look at the list of editors, by the way: Editor: Yoshio Sugimoto, La Trobe University; Advisory Editors: Harumi Befu, Stanford University, Roger Goodman, Oxford University, Michio Muramatsu, Kyoto University, Wolfgang Seifert, Universität Heidelberg, Chizuko Ueno, University of Tokyo. It simply doesn't get any more academic.

Exploding Boy 20:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

But I don't think the Japan Times and other links that I've poohpoohed show that there's any substantial debate; they merely show that there is unhappiness about the term. Therefore they'd be appropriate as references for the existence of such claims: "''Gaijin'' is often claimed to be pejorative.<ref>See for example [http://search.japantimes.co.jp/member/fl20041019zg.htm these two ''Japan Times'' articles] (NB site requires registration).</ref>" They don't constitute evidence that the term is pejorative -- and not because of the lack of university affiliation but because of the lack of even the semblance of evidence or reasoning.

Meanwhile, the quote you've provided from the CUP is more persuasive and the fact that it's from a CUP book suggests to me that there's likely to be a lot more substance. So, if your time and energy suffice, let's have more from Gottlieb's paper.

You say: Some of [this WP article] has been taken from the Japanese Wikipedia article on the same topic, some from the previous English language versions of the article, and some from general knowledge of the topic. That doesn't inspire confidence, I'm afraid. In particular, ja-WP:外人 specifies no sources whatever, so I've no particular reason to believe anything it says. -- Hoary 23:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"That doesn't inspire confidence" (etc) -- Which is exactly why it needs sources. But the fact that it's currently lacking sources doesn't mean it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. --Posted by Exploding Boy (not logged in).

Ah, if someone raise verifiability criteria, you do need wikipedia verified source. If you fail to do so, you have no defence if someone delete. And an internet forum certainly cannot satisfy verifiability criteria so you really can't use that site as a reference to gaijin issue. My suggestion to put link to a gaijin forum but not a thread about gaijin controversy was to make this distinction. Vapour 01:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There are hundreds, in fact, probably thousands of Wikipedia articles lacking sources. We don't delete them, or remove information from them, we try to find appropriate sources for them. Exploding Boy 07:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As of Nanette Gottlieb, her paper appear to be more about sociology than linguistic plus I do not know how fluent she is in Japanese. For example, she raise somewhat faulty argument in reference to "hen na gaijin". "Hen na" is a common reference to any type of person, not exclusive to gaijin. Examples are hen na person and hen na Chinese. I guess it's a nature of sociology work to have multiple opinions. Still, this satisfy verifiability criteria so reference to her work should be in. Vapour

Judging from both the extract and the title, Gottlieb's paper is indeed more about sociology than linguistics, but then a single (non-function) word such as gaijin is only of trivial importance in linguistics. It's true that hen na isn't specific to gaijin, but my impression is that hen na gaijin is a distinctive collocation. (Actually I also get the impression that it refers not to a gaijin who is strange as a gaijin might be expected to be, but rather to a gaijin who surprisingly differs from the [inane] gaijin stereotypes, e.g. by being fluent in the Japanese language. But I haven't heard it often: indeed, I may have heard it discussed more frequently than I've heard it uttered spontaneously.) -- Hoary 06:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a book, not a paper, but the information on discriminatory language is a single chapter in the book. I think you can assume that she is fluent in Japanese. "Reader" is a position similar to "professor." It's not possible to attain a position like that without competency in language. She's the author of several books on the Japanese language, and is considered a leading expert. I don't think it's reasonable to question her credentials. In her remarks (not "argument") about hen na, she never claims that this adjective is exclusive to gaijin. Exploding Boy 07:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No you are quite mistaken. I studied in Australia and U.K. universities and I have met many who specialise in Japan, including Japanese language. I wouldn't call many (most, in fact) of those Western academic's grasp of Japanese as "fluent". I run her name in Google Scholar. Her paper does not require any high level of fluency in Japanese. Karel van Wolferen, for example, can't read or write in Japanese and he can just get by in conversation. But he is "recognised for his knowledge of Japanese politics, economics, history and culture." And he got his professorship in University of Amsterdam, the highest academic institution in Holland, for his supposed expertise. Vapour

It is a book not a paper. And what, are you in fact questioning her credentials? Are you now saying you are somehow against the use of this quote in the article? This entire process is becoming exhausting. Exploding Boy 14:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Her profile is B.A. (Hons Japanese), University of Queensland 1970. Ph.D., University of Queensland, 1975. If they haven't change the system in Australia, there is no requirement of previous study of Japanese in highschool. So her hons in Japanese is that she got top grade for studying Japanese for three years from the scratch. Once you entre postgradute, you are not necessarily required to study how to speak or write. You are required to do research. So I'm not saying she hasn't got all these degree. I'm saying that her degree say nothing about her grasp of Japanese linguistic. From what I can see, she never studied and obtained a degree from Japanese university so she can probably read Japanese but her Japanese writing and speech is probably Japalish, just like my Engrish. She list no credential from japanese university whatsoever. No wonder she specialise in sociology aspect of Japanese. "Her current research projects involve Japanese cybercultures on the Internet; discriminatory language and community protest in Japan; and a book project on Language and Society in Contemporary Japan." As I said, reference to her work is in but her "POV" should not be presented as "fact" given the nature of her work and her credential. It's so flustrating because Japanese media and academic don't put much of their content in cyberspace. I distinctly remember reading an article in Bungeishunjyu where a Professor in Japanese explaning the word gaijin along the context of kotobagari.  :( Vapour

But Vapour, she's not talking about linguistics in this little quotation, she's talking about a social issue.

Incidentally, it's normal for linguists to write about languages of which they don't have a native command. And a lot of the best linguistics work related to Japanese is done (very often by Japanese people) in universities outside Japan.

Lastly, you may wish to sign with not three but four taps on the tilde key. -- Hoary 15:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"Once you entre postgradute, you are not necessarily required to study how to speak or write."

Writing ability in a foreign language is not the primary consideration in academics, unless you're teaching the language itself. What's important is not how well you can write, or even speak (although speaking ability is normally a given), but how well you can read, since research necessarily involves reading. Anyway, all of this is really making pointless assumptions. We have no idea how well Gottlieb speaks Japanese. For all we know she has native fluency. Either way I sincerely doubt that her Japanese ability can be characterized as "Japlish."

"As I said, reference to her work is in but her "POV" should not be presented as "fact" given the nature of her work and her credential."

I find this offensive. This is not "her 'POV'," this is reliable information taken from an academic work published by a top university and written by a leading expert.

"It's so flustrating because Japanese media and academic don't put much of their content in cyberspace.

Well, to be frank here, Japanese academia is often not very well respected in the larger academic world. A degree from a Japanese university is often not sufficient to progress to a higher degree or to obtain employment outside Japan (this is by no means always the case, I realise), because the standards are often seen as lower (there's a reason they say it's hard to get into Japanese universities but easy to graduate, and easy to get into western universities but hard to graduate).

This is why many serious Japanese scholars choose to study overseas, even when they're studying Japanese topics---the Asian Studies department at my university, for example, is full of Japanese people studying Japanese history, literature and linguistics, and the same is true of major universities throughout the west. Also, for similar reasons, while many non-Japanese people do study at Japanese universities, they often do so as students of their home university, or they study in Japan as visiting scholars/researchers, or they undertake language study in Japan. Such credentials don't necessarily appear on the CV.

"I distinctly remember reading an article in Bungeishunjyu where a Professor in Japanese explaning the word gaijin along the context of kotobagari."

Now you see, this represents a POV. The very use of the word "kotobagari" (roughly: political correctness") is non-neutral.

Exploding Boy 17:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

shortening of long words

The article tells us: In Japanese, shortening of long words is common in colloquial usage. That's certainly true. However, I wonder if it's relevant. From gaikokujin to gaijin, we save just two moras. If it is shortening, I'd expect an analogous process with more or less analogous terms. We can discount both kankokujin and chūgokujin as relative neologisms; how about the long-established eikokujin and beikokujin? There's no eijin or beijin. I'm no phonologist, but I see no reason why the one should be shortened and the others not. Indeed, has any term "{morpheme}国人" other than 外国人 been shortened to "{morpheme}人"? -- Hoary 15:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

According to the Kōjien, Gaijin (外人) has three meanings:

1. A person outside of one's own [social] circle. An estranged person.
2. A person who should be viewed as part of the enemy.
3. 外国人(Gaikokujin), 異人(Ijin). Opposite of 邦人 (houjin)

邦人 (Houjin) is often used in contexts where said Japanese person is outside of Japan.

As you can see from the definitions, gaijin has an obvious negative connotation. Personally, I'm not even sure whether it can be considered an abbreviation/shortened form/whatever. Perhaps all of these words (gaijin, gaikokujin, and 異国人 ikokujin, 異邦人 ihoujin, ijin) have such negative implications - foreigners were, after all, unwelcome members of the enemy in the past. Tangotango 15:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Tangotango, you say: Personally, I'm not even sure whether it can be considered an abbreviation/shortened form/whatever. That's precisely my point. The last time I looked at the article, it stated that gaijin started out as a shortened form of gaikokujin, but gave no evidence for this. It did attempt to give some reasoning for it, but I find the reasoning very unconvincing because it would seem to predict formation and wide use of the non-existent (I think) words *英人 and *米人. Of course it's imaginable that word X is derived from the non-pejorative word Y and only later acquires negative connotations. But is this what happened with gaijin? Incidentally, I don't take ja-WP as a reference because the ja-WP article on 外人 is merely a typically mediocre WP article: it has no references and instead is merely a set of assertions that probably represent popular opinion but which I have no particular reason to believe. (Yes, much of WP has a disturbing resemblance to the Dictionnaire des Idées Reçues.) -- Hoary 22:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The above source says precisely that: "gaijin" is a contraction of "gaikokujin." Exploding Boy 04:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the Nanette Gottlieb source in the section above says that gaijin is a contraction, and I'm not questioning Gottlieb's credentials. However, I'd really like a source that provides the etymology of the word, rather than a passing reference to the fact that it's a contraction. Then again, I don't want this fact to become the most contested thing in this article. I'll do some more research next time I'm at the local library. Tangotango 04:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

There are sources providing the etymology both ways. Take your pick. Personally, I'm inclined to believe that "gaijin" developed independently of "gaikokujin," but I wasn't around hundreds of years ago and I doubt anyone can give you a straight answer on this question. - Sekicho 09:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've photocopied the relevant pages of the (20-volume!) 日本国語大辞典 and I'll try to get around to digesting them some time in the next couple of days. -- Hoary 07:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've started to do this.

It's clear from the dictionary that the meaning of "outsider" (someone not in the family, etc.) long predates that of "person from/of a foreign country". I don't see any evidence in the dictionary that, even with the latter/newer meaning, gaijin is a shortened form of gaikokujin. (I'm not saying that there is no evidence, merely that I've seen none. And I don't trust ja-WP, because it doesn't cite its sources.) -- Hoary 00:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Gaikokujin predates Meiji

日本国語大辞典 has an citation for gaikokujin that dates from Ansei 6, i.e. 1860; it therefore can't have been invented by the Meiji government. This humongous (20-vol) dictionary, which is hazily "on historical principles" -- when you try to use it, you realize just how good the OED is -- is over thirty years old; perhaps older examples have emerged since then. -- Hoary 00:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sources

I'm not sure who added the unbalanced and POV tags to the article, but I think some references would help the article tremendously. And I love how many articles we have on single Japanese words, especially in comparison to other languages. Perhaps we should create articles for ausländer, étranger, ntangan, laowai, and every other word for "foreigner" we can think of. — BrianSmithson 17:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is an article for allochtoon in Dutch. And also compare Black (people), The Orient, etc. I think there's quite a bit of merit to having this article, seeing as the offensiveness of the term is a subject of dispute (particularly among, um, gaijin). - Sekicho 09:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

And perhaps we shouldn't, because an article is only worthwhile if it's done well; and despite all the time that has been spent on it, this article is not done at all well. -- Hoary 10:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What does "offensiveness" mean, anyway?

One way in which this article seems to be a mess is the unexplained remark that the term gaijin "can be considered offensive". Clearly some people do consider it offensive: after all, they say it's offensive. But I wonder what they mean by this. People could of course say that they consider this or that term offensive but are unable to explain why (rather similarly to the way in which I can say that I find this or that piece of music enjoyable but am unable to explain why); one might then say that if they find it offensive (for an intangible reason or no reason at all) then for them it is offensive. But I'd hope to advance beyond this.

Shall we start to essay a model of ethnic slurs? (WP seems to lack this. Ethnic slur merely redirects to the dubiously valuable List of ethnic slurs.) I believe that "negro" is offensive because I'm told it's offensive. "Don't use it," I'm told, "because if you do people will be annoyed." It doesn't offend me in the slightest (perhaps in part because I'm used to reading fifty-year-old material), but I avoid it all the same. "Nigger" itself doesn't necessarily offend me (I can read it in Huckleberry Finn) but I rarely encounter it and when I do I'm on edge because the term is so associated with racism. Other terms (which I shan't bother to list here) occasionally used for the same people do offend me because they seem to reduce people to stereotypes that are inaccurate at best and wrong and demeaning at worst.

(As it happens, I'm pigmentally challenged. I don't remember being called a "honky", but the idea doesn't worry me: I just think "honky" is a funny term.)

So where does gaijin fit here? Nowhere that I can see. It seems close to "Jap" and "Brit". The former seems to be widely regarded as offensive, but again I don't know how it's offensive (and I can produce evidence of its affectionate use), while the latter seems almost affectionate.

What's the relationship between the alleged offensiveness of gaijin and the way that the word is allegedly spat out at, or in reference to, gaijin? Maybe it is spat out at them/us. (A gaijin myself, I avoid gatherings of drunks, racists, xenophobes and indeed schoolchildren, so I really don't know.) If it is, then I suspect that this is not because it's offensive but instead is the reason why it's perceived as offensive.

Over to youse. -- Hoary 10:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

New version?

Seems like I turned up too late for the discussions of this 'article'. I put it in inverted commas becuase the way it stands now it's still a total mess of unsourced 'facts' and of what appears to be just the opinions of various editors. Long sections appear as mere speculation on what this word might mean to some people, what it may mean to mean to others and how Japanese people may or may not feel about foreigners. After all the discussions below is it any nearer to reaching a conclusion most people can agree on, and more importantly, an article worthy of Wiki? ShizuokaSensei 06:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It's never too late to discuss and improve, please feel free to join in ... it would be more productive than just showing up and offering criticism without adding anything constructive. CES 12:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

But that's what I do best! Seriously though, it appears that most aspects of this article have been discussions ad nauseam recently, so far be it from to go over old ground or drag up an old arguement which has been resolved. I was wondering how much progress has been made towards a new article after all the recent heated discussion? Is there a new version in the works? I'm not able to find it, but if there is, if someone could direct me to it it would be a better place for to start than inadvertedly dragging up some long since settled discussion point.ShizuokaSensei 13:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the party. Unfortunately there's no new-and-improved version, as of yet at least. As you might be able to tell, there was an attempt to go section-by-section in the discussion above. For some sections, this was more successful than others. The discussion has come to a standstill for the past few weeks, however. CES 13:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It was exhausting and unproductive, and the one protesting seems to have vanished since the discovery of a source that contradicts his claim. Exploding Boy 05:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)