Talk:Gaijin/Archive 5

Gosh, actual (well, fictional) examples!
We're told that: ''Sean in Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift is called a gaijin. The main character of the video game Red Steel is called a gaijin. In the movie Tokyo Pop a Drag queen tells the main character Wendy about how he and her are "gaijin".'' Am I alone in finding this utterly uninteresting? -- Hoary 11:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not alone. I have no idea how this trivia is relevant. But there are other important problems, too. For instance, what is the source for the claim that the first mention of gaijin in Japanese literature is the Heike Monogatari? I assume this is the earliest mention the particular contributor could find of the character string 外人; I also don't know the source of his translation, but without the broader context, it's impossible to tell whether the translation is accurate (his interpretation of the meaning is based on Kojien, which makes no claims about dates or whether Heike's is the first appearance). The claim that Heike Monogatari was written in the thirteenth century is also of dubious value, since its earliest transcriptions date from the late fourteenth and there are numerous variants (i.e., different lineages of books). We are also told that 外人 appears in the 1349 Renri Hishō (連理秘抄) and that "it is used to refer to a (Japanese) person who is a stranger, not a friend"—again, with no more source than Koujien. I'm not sure how these pre-Edo–period uses of gaijin are relevant to how the word is used today and would like to have any such relevance explained and documented (I assume the idea is to demonstrate that 外人 is by nature an "exclusionary" word, with the attendant insinuation that it is therefore derogatory in some people's value systems, though not necessarily that of the Japanese). Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 13:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm ambivalent about the fictional examples. They could be regarded as a useful reference for the "Usage" section. I noticed that there are several movies on the big and small screen with the title "Gaijin" made in Latin America, Europe and elsewhere. I'll be adding them to the "Usage" section with brief synopses if that's alright with other editors. That said, Jim Lockhart's comments on the etymology of the word are the reason why it's necessary to cross-check this entire section with third-party reliable academic sources. I'm paying a visit to the public library today in order to do some research on this subject, as well as the Broadcasting section on kotobagari. I'm not convinced that using some guy's personal homepage as a source for that subsection of "Usage" is appropriate, let alone factually correct. J Readings

22:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Press Guidelines and "Gaijin"
I visited the public library yesterday in order to research the use of “gaijin” in the mainstream press (English and Japanese), as well as the number of times the word "gaijin" appeared in Japanese language non-fiction publications. This is what I learned:

Up until about 1997 or so, the word “gaijin” appears quite often in book titles and magazine headlines in a positive way. In fact, in the English-speaking press, according to Lexis-Nexis, the word is constantly used thousands and thousands of times in newspapers across the world to simply mean “non-Japanese person” or “foreign national.” True, there are exceptions to the rule under the English-language coverage (some are critical Op-Eds), but generally speaking, this was the pattern I found in both Japanese and English.

Then, I researched newspaper guidelines for the Japanese press.

According to the tenth edition of Kisha Handobukku: Shinbun youji yougo-shuu (Journalist Handbook: a collection of newspaper characters and terms) published on 15 March, 2005, the guidelines for Kyodo News journalists changed. For the past 8 or nine editions of the handbook, from roughly 1975 until 2005, the word “gaijin” was not considered part of the sabetsu you-go, or “discriminatory terms.” Journalists were apparently free to use the word in their news articles, which would make sense considering the number of times that the word appeared in the Japanese press during this period. Now, they are asked to write gaikoku-jin in its stead, while acknowledging that the term is a contraction.

I cross-checked this Kyodo News handbook for their journalists with a similar source citing Yomiuri Shimbun guidelines. Here, journalists are *not* prohibited from using the word “gaijin” unlike words such as eta, hinin or buraku which were (and definitely are) considered to be unacceptable under all circumstances. However, the Yomiuri still advises its journalists that it’s probably best to write gaikoku-jin instead of gaijin, also noting that special circumstances can certainly be made. (Source: “Kotobagari”-to sabetsu (“Word hunting and discrimination), Tokyo: Shukan bunshun, 1994, pg. 233.) What these "special circumstances" (tokubetsu-na baai) are, the newspaper handbook doesn't say.

I didn’t have a chance to research other newspaper guidelines, but just based on these two so far, in addition to the vast number of Japanese and English publications that used the word in a generally neutral way up until the late 1990s, my impression is that “gaijin” only recently became (legally?) problematic due to some kind of political correctness movement (if that's the appropriate term to use to describe what's happening), that it was simply an acceptable contraction of gaikoku-jin. Given this preliminary evidence, I’m beginning to wonder if the etymology section is not terribly misleading to the general reader by arguing that “gaijin” has always carried a pejorative connotation. -- J Readings 00:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Very interesting. Thanks for going to all the trouble. As I have been trying to say all along (predating the engagement here with current contributors), the Japanese do not use gaijin to be insulting or pejorative. It is foreigners who have called attention to their taking personal offense to the term that has led to the caution on the part of the press and officials in its use. I have nothing against people's saying they are offended by the term, but I do take issue with those who accuse the term's users of malice in using it so as to make their point. And this is all compounded by those who have a (nominally) antiracist political agenda. In all fairness, though, I think I need to say that also an increasing number of Japanese know from personal experience what it's like to live in another society and be singled out as different. Many of these people have also been trying to inform their compatriots of how unpleasant this can be, and to persuade other Japanese to not constantly remind foreigners of their foreignness, for instance by using gaijin more often than necessary.  I hope this helps you guys straighten out the article a bit by removing its pedantic tone and giving it balance—as I've said before, making it describe the controversy rather than engage in it. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 09:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Jim, you said "the Japanese do not use gaijin to be insulting or pejorative. It is foreigners who have called attention to their taking personal offense to the term..." I have a couple of problems with this. First one gets the impression that you are arguing "the Japanese" have but a single way of regarding this word. I know that in educated society the term is rarely used, but it is heard used without malice in rural areas, also it is used in anger. My second concern is simply the question of who decides if a word is insulting or not. We can hear the word "Jap" used by people who mean no insult (who regard it the same way as, say, "Brit"), but that doesn't mean it isn't a derogatory term. There are enough non-ethnic-Japanese residents of Japan who take offence at the word "gaijin" to incline me to regard it as derogatory, and this happens to be reflected in the Japanese major media style guidelines. Suggest the word be marked as "derogatory." RomaC 02:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi RomaC; thanks for your comments. Apologies for not qualifying my statement better—I’ve been through this so many times that sometimes I forget to do so; I’ll try to explain. To your first doubt: My point is and always has been that most Japanese rarely use gaijin with the intent to be offensive, so interpreting it unconditionally as derogatory is at best ill-advised, and asserting that people should interpret it, first and foremost, as a derogatory (i.e., effectively teaching readers that they should be insulted if they hear it) is highly POV as well as potentially inflammatory. Gaijin is, like many words in English as well, a word that can be used to be insulting or even affectionate, depending on the particular context of its use and who is uttering it when, where, and to whom.  Fwiw, it is my expressed opinion that there is not such thing as “the Japanese” as a monolith of thinking.  To your second doubt: The difference between Jap and gaijin is that Jap’s derogatory status came first—the word was essentially invented to be derogatory; in contrast, with gaijin, this is not so, and its derogatory status came after a critical-mass number of ill-informed people got it in their heads that gaijin was the quintessence of some perceived Japanese insularity (I’m not arguing here either way about the insularity issue—that's whole different can of worms) and therefore illustrated the exclusionary tendency, xenophobia, and racist tendencies of “the Japanese” (without defining, btw, who “the Japanese” are—which to me sounds like a form of politically correct neo-racism, for lack of a better description).  Conclusion: In a nutshell, with Jap, people are dealing with a word that was originally meant and has been long used to denegrate (i.e., your have malicious intent from the beginning); so anyone who is called Jap can justifiably assume malice and feel insulted. In contrast, gaijin is merely a shortcut word used to identify people not born and raised in Japan (though usually Caucasians from North America and Europe), just as foreigner and alien are used in English in a similar manner: there is no malicious intent in the word’s beginnings, nor is their much evidence that malicious intent is a necessary component of its use today; so anyone who is called gaijin can not justifiably assume malice and feel insulted without further analysis of the context in which it is used—factors such as the personal relationship between the parties involved, speaker’s tone of voice, and other immediate contextual elements.  I therefore believe the word gaijin should not be unconditionally categorized as derogatory. To do so would be misleading.  In haste and HTH, Jim_Lockhart 05:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Appreciate your opinion Jim. On the question at hand it does not seem relevant what the original meaning or intent was ("Negro" being an example of a word that has seen its usage go from common to curtailed). However, sticking for a moment on this point, it may be misleading to describe "gaijin" as a shortened version of "gaikokujin," as in fact it predates that word.


 * In any case, don't we need to look at how this or any word is used/regarded today? I would say your contention that "ill-informed people" have made "gaijin" derogatory (while POV) does suggest that you accept it as derogatory but are peeved at why it has developed as such. Without getting into a discussion on our personal opinions on the word, why shouldn't the simple fact that "gaijin" is avoided by Japanese academia and mainstream media and is regarded as derogatory by many foreign residents of Japan be enough to have it tagged as such in the article's lead? If there are published arguments from reliable sources that support your opinions on this word then they can of course also be included. RomaC 05:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again, RomanC. We’re going to start going in circles again with this, as J. Readings describes below in his comment about frustrations. Everything you ask about in these two paragraphs has been covered time and time-again on this very talk page. Get ready for the merry-go-round ride... If the original meaning of gaijin is irrelevant, then why have those who argue that it is insulting gone to such great lengths to illustrate that it was, in fact, always derogatory? That’s how the argument(s) over its etymology, how it is used in Chinese, and whether it predates gaikokijin got started! My contention has always been (check the history) that how a word (any word, for that matter) is used in the vernacular, at present, is most important for deciding what it means (and, by extension, whether it is by definition derogatory or otherwise) at present. But I digress. As far as gaijin predating gaikokujin is concern, I disagree: gaijin as a word for foreigner does not predate gaikokujin, and the evidence for claiming so is specious; further, that evidence, as cited in the article and on this page, comes from mere dictionary entries, not from academic works; and finally, the conclusion about the predating is not that of the cited source, but that of the contributing editor; according to WP guidelines, that makes the conclusion original research—I believe the term is original synthesis (see WP:OR).  My use of ill-informed does not mean I accept gaijin as unconditionally derogatory; I accept that it is potentially derogatory in certain contexts and usages (how many times do I have to write this?). By ill-informed (I’m trying to be charitable—actually I think they were ignorant, disingenuous [in wanting to accuse people of malice when none was intended], or both), I am referring to people who drew conclusions about the word’s use based on cognates in their own languages or for political reasons without substantiating their conclusions before they starting propagating them (happened mostly back around the mid-80s, as IIRC).  It never dawned on most Japanese that gaijin could be a bad word and that they could get hauled over the coals for using it—until they got broadsided by some irate foreigner attributing malice. As far as any similarity to Negro is concerned, I believe it is conceivable that gaijin could go the same way as that word. But until that happens, attributing use of the word, a priori, to intent to insult (i.e., be derogatory) is quite unfair as well insulting in itself.  You refer to a “simple fact that "gaijin" is avoided by Japanese academia and mainstream media and is regarded as derogatory”; I contend that this simple fact does not exist; and to wit they do not avoid it because it is derogatory. In academia, if they avoid it (I’m not convinced that they do), I would assume they do so because it is so informal; but the mainstream press does not necessarily avoid it (though they have been increasingly doing so over the past five years or so). Their avoidance, though, seems to be attributable to factors other than any fixed derogatory nature. Even the Kyodo News Handbook cited above does not say it is derogatory. In short, I believe (there is no empirical evidence to support this yet) that we see and hear gaijin less and less because of changes in Japanese ways of thinking that have been taking place over the past decade. Factors behind this shift include the opinions of returnees who have experienced being “gaijins” themselves and a slow realization that the word does make some people feel bad, singled-out, excluded, etc.  In this context, please don’t overlook the operative words that qualify my stance: I believe gaijin should not be categorized as unconditionally derogatory; if it must be characterized as derogatory, then it should be qualified as potentially derogatory—a device many reference works use for words like this that have a gray area.  Also, as I have stated before, this article should cover the debate, but it should not engage in it (see WP:NPOV); as it stands, it is (and some of its editors are) engaging in it while only ostensibly describing it.  Finally, you challenge me to cite sources that support my opinion. This is interesting, in that while commentary abounds, there are no reliable sources to support either opinion; for details, I suggest a thorough reading of J.Reading’s comments: he has expressed the situation quite aptly.  I hope this clears things up. In haste, and Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 07:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hola once more Jim, If I read you right your opinion is that you acknowledge a problematic "gray area," with current usage, that "gaijin" is potentially derogatory, but do not regard the word as unconditionally derogatory. I would certainly agree (I think very few words are "unconditionally derogatory," certainly not nigger or fag which are frequently either used self-referentially by blacks and gays respectively, or within sympathetic groups or with poetic license and so on). So yes, while "gaijin" isn't always derogatory, we agree that is has a definite potential to be derogatory and is widely treated as such in educated society and respected media, and this brings the merry-go-round back to the question of why the word isn't tagged as "derogatory" in the article's intro.

In short, my argument is that universality is practically not a condition for this word not to be tagged as "derogatory." For example there are more than 100 listings in the Wiki category for infectious diseases. Even though these diseases do not infect absolutely everyone or even most people who come into contact with them, we regard them as "infectious" (not "potentially infectious diseases"). So, suggest tagging "gaijin" as "derogatory" in the lead and qualifying elsewhere in the article that the word is / can be used without malice or insult. RomaC 07:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, RomaC, your argument is very sophisticated. Just like comparing apples and oranges because they’re all fruit. Do as you please. Just think, though: Whom do you help? I don’t think tagging gaijin as derogatory is going to do anything for Wikipedia’s credibility problems, although I sure it will score points among those who think anyone called gaijin by a Japanese (but not by other gaijin) should feel offended, whether justifiably or otherwise. Please note again that there are no press guidelines that classify gaijin as a derogatory term—let alone any empirical works (that we have been able to find so far) either in support of or in opposition to either proposition. The lack of such evidence should indicate that no reputable scholars have so far thought of the “gaijin is derogatory” debate as worthy (i.e., notable enough) of their attention.  In any case, as I’ve been saying all along, it should be mentioned that for some people it is, and that for others it is potentially derogatory; I’ve never spoken out against this. What I am speaking out against is a flat statement that it is, and against skewing the article to support that view. Is that not reasonable? Or do you feel that the case against the word is so strong, and its use so egregious, that the article should be biased in clear violation of Wikipedia policy?  Now that we’ve come to WP policy, I think I can touch on the real dilemma for me—and, if I understand him correctly, J.Readings: What’s even bigger than whether gaijin is derogatory or otherwise, is that there is no reliable verifiable empirical evidence to support either claim. Every argument either way in this article (including, I now realize, some of those I made) is a product of original synthesis. So the next question arises: How to we reconcile this situation with Wikipedia policy? Since this situation concerns other articles (including many on Japan-related subjects) as well, J.Readings and I are wondering if you could help us, since you seem to have far more experience on Wikipedia than we. How ’bout it?  One final note on gaijin: I have seen it argued in several forums, including the Honyaku mailing list (a discussion list for professional J<>E translators) if you'd like to check its archives (I'll send you the address privately if you want it), that many gaijins see it as a sign of positive discrimination rather than negative, and have noted its use as more of a compliment and expression of admiration than an insult. (The bit about ~san being tacked onto it making it polite, and its use without ~san being derogatory, is another misunderstanding by people whose Japanese isn’t as up to speed as they think it is—at least, that’s the way I’ve always taken it, but what do I know?   In haste and best regards, Jim_Lockhart 09:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * These philosophical debates are futile. It should be obvious to everyone by now that the reason this article's quality suffers, like so many others before it, is because it is a tertiary source (i.e., an encyclopedia) that cannot produce any secondary sources to support the abstract opinions advanced herein. Let me echo something Jim Lockhart wrote: there is no reliable verifiable empirical evidence to support either claim. The real question we face now is, What to do? Personally, I am in no rush to make a decision either way. Research is a messy business; it involves a lot of (sometimes fruitless) grub work, but it has to be done. I can only say that I will try my best, as we all undoubtedly will, to hit the books again and try to uncover something tangible to cite. Failing that, it seems to me that we have three other options: (1) approach the WP administrators to request special permission to use primary sources to infer qualitatively a much larger conclusion about the word's meaning, (2) request permission to  quote simply (and extensively) in neutral fashion all available primary sources (something that I understand is currently not allowed) with the aim of letting the reader decide on his or her own what to make of it all, or (3) delete the entire gaijin article, concluding that the WP editors erred in allowing it in the first place. That said, I suspect that all of these options will meet resistance from the WP administrators and contributing editors alike. J Readings 13:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Minor distinction?
I have an electronic dictionary, and the entries for gaijin and gaikokujin are as follows:
 * がいじん　外人　<白人＞ a Westerner; a European
 * がいこくじん　外国人　a foreigner; people from [in] other countries

My experiences in Japan don't contradict this usage.Bennie13 03:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The article mentions this distinction under usage. Also, note the parenthetic "＜白人＞ in front of the gloss for 外人. I don't know which electronic dictionary you're using, but it looks like a good call. Jim_Lockhart 04:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Simliar to gringo?
Is it accurate and/or noteworthy to mention that it is comparable to the term gringo. Gaijin must be the Japanese equivalent of the word gringo. 75.162.19.68 21:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably not. --Jim_Lockhart 11:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really, I imagine. From everything I've read, gringo is not used in the mainstream daily Spanish-speaking press to refer to "foreign nationals" or "foreigners." Instead, the word "extranjero" is generally used. Gringo carries a more populist connotation, doesn't it? Meanwhile, gaijin was (and until fairly recently still is) used in the mainstream press. J Readings 14:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Does it still appear in the press very often in reference to individuals? (I still see it in reference to investors as a group, but that's about it.) I don't read the papers that much any more, let alone the weekly magazines; but Kyodo News Service now advises its stringers not to use it because of the number of people who now take offense at it (記者ハンドブック　第10版, Apr 05, p 492). --Jim_Lockhart 15:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. I know about Kyodo News Service. I reported those findings above. But that's why I said "until fairly recently." Ironically, in the English press the word still appears everywhere to describe foreign individuals. This past year alone, according to Lexis-Nexis, the word gaijin appeared 378 times in the mainstream press: newspapers (263), industry trade press (41), newswires (35), aggregate news sources (29), magazines and journals (27), blogs (15), web-based publications (10), and news transcripts (1). The biggest users of the term are naturally The Japan Times and The Daily Yomiuri. Kyodo News Service doesn't seem to use the word anymore which is consistent with its handbook recommendations, but other newswires such as Jiji Press, Business Wire, PR Wire, and Agence France Presse do. Meanwhile, I typed the word 外人 into Nikkei Telecom 21 to see how many times financial journalists used it over the past year. The results say 26 times, but that's a far cry from how many times I saw the word pop up in the Asahi Shimbun and Yomiuri Shimbun in archives searches of 1980s and early 1990s material. I hope that helps. J Readings 18:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that clears that up. Jim_Lockhart 02:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The Foreign cemeteries in Japan were always refered to as Gaijin bochi (外人墓地) in Japanese, colloqially by everybody, and officially by the tour companies. And there weren't any negative connotations associated with THIS usage.  I suppose they have to change it to Gaikokujin bochi (外国人墓地) now, though.
 * Regarding the analogy with gringo, I can't imagine Cementerio de los Gringos (Foreigner's Cemetery) being used without having negative connotations, which is in sharp contrast to Gaijin bochi in Japanese.--Endroit 18:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In culture section.
I'm not really sure what to say, but I can't see any use at all for this section, and I consider myself rather tolerant of such sections. It says absolutely nothing aside from "the word gaijin was used here." Now, like I said in my edit summary, the usage of gaijin in culture is undoubtedly an interesting topic, but a mere listing of wherever gaijin was used would be ridiculously huge and an indiscriminate collection of information. The section, should it be remade, needs things like considerations on usage, notable times it may have been censored or stuck in odd places, the usage for flavor, that kinda stuff. SnowFire 01:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Snowfire, can you please give us a Wikipedia page on words that you're using as a model and why you think that page would be relevant to this one? That would be helpful, thanks. J Readings 04:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. It seems that the article has degenerated a bit since then, but this diff to Damsel in Distress shows the general idea (I had previously shaved the list here, as lots of entries there weren't even correct).  When were Damsels in distress used?  Why did they fall out of favor?  What advantages do they have to plots?  That kind of stuff.  My edit was later distributed throughout the whole article, which is fine.  SnowFire 05:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Snowfire on this matter, fwiw: I cannot see the relevance between how the gaijin is used in the vernacular and its example usages in the cultural “examples”. If anything, the examples provide a skewered view of its usage within Japanese context because they show usages outside this native context: They are representative of foreigners’ interpretations of how the word is used rather than of how it is used in and by Japanese. Do any of the examples even claim fidelity to real-life Japanese usage? (I’m asking.) I think these considerations, especially given the increasingly emotively charged atmosphere surrounding the expression among expats and their local hosts, should outweigh any precedents set by models in other Wikipedia articles. HTH, Jim_Lockhart 06:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Frustrations and Observations
May I offer a few general frustrations and observations about this gaijin article having closely followed the back-and-forth for the past year?

My first frustration is that nobody seems to agree on what purpose this articles serves: is it supposed to be about the “controversy”? Is it supposed to be about the etymology and history of the word? Is it supposed to be about its modern-day usage, and if so in what language: English or Japanese or Brazilian Portuguese? What is the model for the article, and why are we sure it’s the appropriate model to emulate?

My second frustration is linked to the first: there are virtually no sources, let alone cross-referenced sources, that present a descriptive and neutral presentation of all the alleged (and known) facts in this article—especially the “analysis” of the word itself. That alone should sound the alarm bells for WP editors that there is something seriously wrong here.

My third frustration is the heaviest of all: read the WP archives for this article, like reading these yahoogroup chat fora, and you’ll notice that what sometimes (not always) passes for research is the equivalent of a barroom discussion. “Some of my Japanese friends tell me….” “I have foreign friends who think the word is derogatory…” “I am a Japanese native-speaker, therefore I am telling you that the word is not derogatory…” “I am a naturalized Japanese citizen, therefore I’m telling you the word is derogatory…” Light on facts, heavy on personal opinion and philosophy. Like it or not, all of that is “noise.” It’s private, non-verifiable (almost always erroneous) hearsay and speculation that circulate the internet in the form of assumed “facts” about the nature of the word. Yet, it keeps creeping into the article (viz. the article's current "broadcasting and publishing" section on the main page). What evidence is there to support the assertion that "The word gaijin is classified as racial discrimination (人種差別) and included on a common list of prohibited words used by Japanese broadcasters and publishers"? The source is some guy's personal homepage which is not—I repeat not—a reliable source for a controversial article. The only reason that I did not remove it is because I haven't finished my own research on the media yet. I figured, "Let it go for now; it's not libelous material."

I strongly encourage everyone who wants to edit this article to follow the very informative discussions on Wikipedia:Reliable sources WP:RS, Wikipedia:Attribution WP:ATT, and Wikipedia:No original research WP:NOR. Those discussions and guidelines influenced why I stopped “editing-as-I-go.” With controversial subjects, I wanted to make sure that any generalized statements of fact are fairly well-researched before they entered the main article. This is why I haven’t added my preliminary research on the press guidelines and gaijin because: (1) how representative are these two newspapers (today) of the entire media, (2) when did these guidelines come into being, and (3) why did they come into being? Without answering those three questions, it’s difficult to generalize about the nature of the word in Japanese or English...assuming that is even the purpose of the article. I just don't have enough to time to re-visit the library to do the research.

Finally, let me stress that I’m not attacking anyone’s personal beliefs. I’m neither for nor against the usage of the word. I simply want to write an article that’s consistent with WP guidelines...all of them. It's frustrating. J Readings 09:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes many of the arguments here do seem anecdotal and chatty, even though this is the discussion page not the article, sourced points would be more compelling, will try to do that. RomaC 06:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Published Academic Works and "Gaijin"
At the risk of going off on a tangent, RomaC raised an interesting issue regarding the use of 外人, or gaijin, in academic works. To test the hypothesis that academics "avoid gaijin" in their published work for either reasons of malice, informality, or perhaps something else, I typed the keyword into Google Scholar. Anyone can access Google Scholar by going to the following URL: (Japanese)  and (English) . Assuming it were true that the word 外人 is not used in academic papers because it's always been derogatory, for example, the number of hits should be very low to non-existent for papers not discussing the word itself. However, for Japanese-language papers, roughly 350 hits were registered. Moreover, the word 外人 seems to be used in published papers as recently as 2006 by Tokai University. The title: 大相撲における女人禁制の研究IV : 外人観客の意識調査 (A Survey of Nix Women in the Sumo Ring IV : The Case of Gaijin spectators' opinions). Judging by the tone of the paper, the academic is simply referring to "foreigners" without any malice. If the Google Scholar search is opened up to include other languages with the word 外人, assuming everything is adjusted to the correct "Scholar Preferences," over 35,000 hits will be registered. Most of these hits are for academic papers written in either Mandarin, Taiwanese or Cantonese (I'm assuming — they're clearly not written in Japanese.) I also typed gaijin into the English version: 291 hits. Obviously, the number of hits in each language don't tell us anything about the tone or context of the word use. For that, we would need to read each Japanese, English, or Chinese-language article and try to sort it all out. But just based on these preliminary findings without reading all of the articles we do know for a fact that the word is being used in what were (or are) presumably peer-reviewed academic publications. J Readings 16:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea JR, did you / could you do comparative searches with the word "gaikokujin"? RomaC 06:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Etymology and history
The section on etymology and history was supposed to be removed from the main article on 27 March 2007 if it could not provide corroboration for both its unsourced assertions and single sourced assertions of questionable accuracy. I gave it some more time thinking a few editors were still researching the question. We can always re-include the material provide that dual-sources can be found to corroborate the assertions.


 * But, without this section, the assertion in the lead that "Gaijin (外人) is a common abbreviation of gaikokujin" should now be removed or it will give an incorrect impression. It is not simply an abbreviation, as the word "gaijin" predates the word "gaikokujin" -- no matter how the word(s) may be applied now or in the past, this remains a fact. RomaC 17:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A "fact" according to whom, RomaC? Can you please be more specific because without factual corroboration of cited and cross-referenced sources your assertion is not very helpful to us. Are you referring to the word "tohito" or the word "gaijin"? And if the latter, what are you citing? As it stands, we can cite at least five dictionaries, journalist handbooks, and countless newspaper articles that all support the sentence that reads that "gaijin" is a common abbreviation of "gaikokujin." How many sources can you cite that establish that it is not? This gets to the crux of the matter.J Readings 17:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * RomaC’s out-of-sequence comment moved to reflect sequence; see below.


 * G’day, folks. Just for good measure, I checked a Meiji-period dictionary, the 言海 Genkai; interestingly enough, it’s there. The entry:"ぐわい志゛ん　（名）＝外人＝㈠外[ホカ]ノ人. ㈡外国人[グワイコクジン]."No mention of とひと anywhere (I checked for it). My volume is a copy of the 628th printing from    1931, so I have no way to check whether this entry was also in the original Genkai from 1889.  The other day, RomaC asked me (rhetorically, I think) who it was I thought determined whether a word is derogatory. My personal opinion is, the speaker; but I decided it would be better to make sure my understanding of derogatory and pejorative was accurate before replying.  If the wiki article is anything to go by, I’m right: by definition, there must be intent to insult, offend, or express contempt for a word to be derogatory or pejorative. That, however, is different from a word’s being offensive. Offense is something taken, and offensiveness, something perceived—both actions taken by the person on the receiving end. Thus derogatory or pejorative are qualities of a word spoken with intent to hurt, insult, degrade, or denigrate; whereas offense can apply whether such intend is present or not. In this context, gaijin certainly has the potential to be offensive: I’m sure just about any non-Asian ex-pat in Japan, especially whites and blacks, have been through the experience and annoyance of having little kids stop in their tracks to point them out with screeches of gaijin da, gaijin da! or a bewildered look accompanied by that “O! gaijin da!” crap. When expats get upset over gaijin, they are usually reacting to this sort of thing. But though these things are offensive, they are rarely derogatory. In that sense, I think being called gaijin is essentially different than, say, as one guy put it to my wife in a American mall last summer, “You Chinee?” Or do you disagree? Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 07:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again, have been a bit busy but see this discussion is going on. I'm not clear, are you suggesting that the word "gaijin" does not predate the word "gaikokujin"? The removed section below cited "gaijin" in Renri Hishō (連理秘抄, c. 1349) by Nijo Yoshimoto (二条良基), where it is used to refer to a (Japanese) person who is a stranger, not a friend. I believe I can provide further references to show that "gaijin" predates "gaikokujin." Or is this not an issue for you? It could also be said that some people regard "gaijin" as an abbreviated form of "gaikokujin" but this is another facet of the issue. My suggestion would be to simply include  the etymology of the word (perhaps breaking it down to "outside person" for clarity?) and then refer to this new way of regarding it as a shortened version of "gaikokujin" and point out that there may be controversy surrounding this. On whether it is derogatory or offensive (interesting point on the distinction between the two, but the definition of "pejorative" you refer to does specify that "Such terms as nigger (nigga), redneck, cracker, white trash, Redskin, dyke, queer, fairy, faggot, tranny, geek, nerd, chav, or cripple are considered pejorative if used by a non-member of the particular group in question" and I would say "gaijin" might fall into this class). In any case Wiki is clear in WP:NPOV that all "significant views" should be represented in an article, I think we agree that some significant number of foreigners and Japanese consider it offensive and some significant number do not, so maybe we can write that it is considered offensive but there is some active debate on this.RomaC 08:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for putting your comment into sequence, RomC, but I think its being out of sequence is confusing. To your question as to whether I am suggesting that gaijin does not predate gaikokujin: I don’t know whether it does or not, and have seen no evidence either way; personally, I believe gaijin does not predate gaikokujin.  As for the Renri Hishō citation: Apparently the character string 外人 appears in that work, but I do not know whether it is read gaijin or tohito. The work itself is from 1349, which places it in a linguistic period that does not allow off-the-cuff judgments. The Kojien definition supplies no dates. Another dictionary, 小学館　古語大辞典 (1983—this is an authoritative dictionary of classical Japanese), does have an entry for gaijin (quoted below) and cites the Heike Monogatari example. Like Genkai (and all other 国語辞典 I’ve been able to check), it does not mark gaijin as pejorative (J dictionaries usually do so with “【卑】” or something similar."ぐゎいじん〔名〕自分と無関係の人. 他人. 転じて、疎遠な人. 敵視すべき人. 「その恩を忘れて、外人もなき所に兵具を整へ軍兵《ぐんびやう》を語らひおき｣＜平家・一・鹿谷＞. 「外人 ウトキヒト」＜名義抄＞"As you can see from the broader context given here, in Heike, 外人 refers to people who one has to be wary of because they might spill secrets, since the reason for gathering is to plot and ready for a fight. The definition from the Myōgishō is also quite interesting, though not necessarily relevant here.  All this said, I like your suggestion on how to handle all this, and I think that is what J. Reading and I have been driving at all along: These things all should be mentioned, but it a detached style that does not seek to guide readers to any specific conclusion; specifically, the text should not lead by implication. My argument all along is that the text, so far, has done that.  Back to the issue of derogatory/pejorative vs offensive: I believe the sentence you quote is skewered and strongly POV—whether intentionally or not, I think it reverses the equation. The cited words as rarely used without contempt (i.e., intent to hurt, insult, etc.); even when used by members of the group they degrade, they are being used ironically or sarcastically, so the sentence should read:"...terms [such] as nigger (nigga), redneck, cracker, white trash, Redskin, dyke, queer, fairy, faggot, tranny, geek, nerd, chav, or cripple are not pejorative only when used by a member of the group [they refer to]."All these words embody, at least in current usage, the intent requisite of pejorativeness; my argument with respect to gaijin is simply that it, used without qualification, does not embody such intent, especially not in past usage and rarely (if ever) in current usage. People’s taking offense at it is their option, therefore it is unfair to automatically attach malice to it and, especially, attribute malice to those who use it when they are unaware of the potential of its giving offense. If you want to educate people about that possibility, that’s fine; but flatly stating it—which is what labeling the word derogatory/pejorative does—is not, at least not here. In haste and best regards, Jim_Lockhart 13:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Today, I spent the better part of two hours carefully reviewing 6 Japanese dictionaries with various publication dates. (I should have been working!) Anyway, they all have entries for the word "gaijin." I don't have time right now to type out the findings, or summarize what they have in common beyond what I stated already: they all specifically acknowledge that "gaijin" is a contraction of "gaikokujin". Suffice it to say that I have more questions than answers regarding the current "etymology and history" section as a result of this further consultation, and I don't regret removing the section from the main page until these citation issues can be resolved. I'll respond in more detail in a few days after my work obligations are resolved. I don't think anyone here is in a terrible hurry. Best, J Readings 17:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The word gaijin is of ancient provenance and the first recorded use can be traced back to Heike Monogatari, written early in the 13th century:


 * 外人もなき所に兵具をととのへ
 * tohito mo naki tokoro ni tsuwamono-wo totonoe
 * ''Gather the soldiers where there are no 外人

Here, the word "外人" is used to refer to potential spies or people who should be regarded as enemies. Another early reference is in Renri Hishō (連理秘抄, c. 1349) by Nijo Yoshimoto (二条良基), where it is used to refer to a (Japanese) person who is a stranger, not a friend.

The word was initially not applied to foreigners, and historically, the Portuguese, the first Europeans to visit Japan, were known as nanbanjin (南蛮人, "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, "red-haired people.")

The word gaikokujin was only introduced and popularized by the Meiji government. As the empire of Japan extended to Taiwan and Korea, the term naikokujin (内国人, "inside country people") was used to refer to nationals of other territories of the Empire. While other terms fell out of use after World War II, gaikokujin remained as the official government term for non-Japanese people..

Why I removed the section about gaijin being on a list of prohibited words (etc)
The purported source (http://monoroch.net/gallery/kinshi/index.html) is unreliable because:
 * The name and credentials of the author are not available.
 * The author states that he compiled the list as part of a summer school project that he never bothered to finish.
 * The author provides no source(s).
 * The author states that the list is of words whose use (unspecified) broadcasters, newspapers, and other media “self-regulate (自主規制している)” and that, in addition to “words, such as discriminatory words, that have insulting meanings for certain people,” the list includes “words that, while normally not [understood as] having any discriminatory connotations, should be used with discretion at certain times and in certain circumstances.” The list, however, does not differentiate between words that are (i.e., does not classify the words specifically as) discriminatory, potentially discriminatory, mildly insulting, or anything else. Further, the author also notes that the list also includes some words that are frequently used malapropos and should hence be avoided to avert misunderstandings.
 * Nowhere does the author state that the list is one of prohibited words, much less making any statements as to who prohibits them other than those media companies that are avoiding their use, for whatever reason that may be.
 * It is true that gaijin is not on any official regulatory lists, but this is only worthy of note in the context of someone's implying that it should be. The statement was also unsourced.

The previous section also contains unsourced statements saying the use of gaikokujin is practically limited to whites, and that the Japanese media use specific country origins for other Asian nationalities and ethnic groups. Since seeing this statement here, I’ve been observing how these words are used in news reporting on NHK and Fuji Television; my observations do not coincide with these statements: Specific nationalities seem to be mentioned whenever the nationality is known at the time of reporting or relevant, and gaikokujin (as well as gaikokujin-fū and gaikokujin no yō na) seems to be used for people of just about any nationality until their nationality is clear. (I’ve watched specifically for the transition from gaikokujin to Chinese, Korean, etc., and seen it.) So unless this material can be sourced reliably, I think it should be removed. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 14:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Etymology section back
I've restored the etymology section, with some extra references. Unlike much of the POV cruft that has been rightfully excised, this is factual stuff, and a couple of missing references for (IMHO) fairly uncontroversial assertions are no excuse for nuking the whole thing. I don't have a Kojien on hand, and it's not available online, but the naikokujin/ihoujin bits should be easy to verify from there if somebody does. Jpatokal 08:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been extremely busy over the past few weeks, so I apologize for my silence on the gaijin etymology issue. I wanted to report my findings after researching six Japanese dictionaries and other publicly verifiable sources. Unfortunately, time management problems prevented me from typing everything up so far. What I respectfully request right now is that we don't start an edit war. If the archives are reviewed, there are some legitimate problems with the etymology section. The Kojien citations only cover a couple of assertions. Also, they do not correspond with many other Japanese dictionaries from different publication periods (before and after) raising questions about which source(s) to use. If five verifiable sources say one thing, and only one source says something else, why should the minority source be used? To say that the Kojien trumps other Japanese dictionaries or sources is a provocative assertion, yes, but it is still just an assertion. Then, there is the question of the other unsourced assertions and their relevance to the gaijin article. Without reliable third-party citations linking them to this subject, are they both original research and original synthesis? Frankly, I think that they are but I would like to read Jpatokal's thoughts. At this stage, rather than unilaterally undoing Jpatokal's edits, would it be alright to ask that he please remove it until everything is cross-referenced and thoroughly researched? We can keep talking about it on the talk: gaijin page. In fact, I strongly support more research. See: WP:FACT, WP:ATT, and WP:NOR. Best, J Readings 11:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to do more research, and if you find any interesting sources that disagree with Kojien on fundamental points, by all means go ahead and insert them. However, until you do so it's Kojien versus nothing, in which case Kojien wins by default.


 * And oh: no, they're not original research, it's just a collation of what I've gathered from sci.lang.japan (where this has been debated many, many, many times over the years by people far more knowledgeable than I). The main points I'm driving at here, though, is that the word "gaijin" is both a) much older than "gaikokujin" and b) has, at least in the far past, had a different meaning, neither of which is evident from the article without the History section. Jpatokal 13:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. If I understand you correctly, you're insisting that the controversial Kojien assertions about the etymology of the word gaijin (pronounced gaijin, and not tohito) are established facts not needing cross-references because they are sourced from a Usenet chat forum discussion called sci.lang.japan, and therefore they don't need to be cross-referenced? If so, can you please pass along some of the reference links to those discussions? Many contributing editors might find those discussions helpful. Thanks again, J Readings 14:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Kojien’s assertion is not controversial, because it does not say what this section says it says. The problem is with the original synthesis here, which looks like it is intended to skewer Kojien’s gloss (it’s dictionary, not a book of etymology) to substantiate veiled claims that gaijin is from its beginnings an inherently pejorative word, and by extension that its use is evidence of some sort of (uniquely?) Japanese xenophobia. Presenting all the etymologies is fine, but the text needs to be cleansed of this bias. Though I’ve never read sci.lang.japan, I’m willing to bet that it’s a primary source whence this sort of bias is propagated: Usenet groups are (in)famous for that sort of thing. Further, I disagree with the notion that inaccurate material is better than none, or that Kojien trumps anything reliable by default. Fwiw, the information at Monash is known among professional translators for its reliability; but that aside, and as I’ve shown above in earlier discussions, at least two reliable period dictionaries (言海 and 小学館　古語大辞典) neither flag the word as (potentially) derogatory nor hint in their glosses that it might be. I’m not exactly sure what the significance of contrasting 外人 with 異人 is, though; one seems to be derived from 外国人 whereas the other is from 異国人, and 異(国)人 just happened to be the expression that fell into disuse. Fwiw, Jim_Lockhart 16:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Jim Lockhart knows Wikipedia policy very well, so this comment is not directed at him. It's a general observation. Usenet chat fora like sci.lang.japan cannot (repeat cannot) be used as citations in a Wikipedia article. Chat fora are not reliable sources of information because they are self-published assertions lacking editorial oversight and fact-checking (see WP:ATT). If this issue were to be settled in arbitration, I would be very surprised if any of the arbiters disagreed on that point. Rather, I was hoping to find some notable (and recognized) authorities, according to Wikipedia's attribution standards, who perhaps were posting on sci.lang.japan, or better yet, specific citations of publicly verifiable academic works that could help us in the editing process (i.e., we can consult those works directly in the public libraries). It was a good faith request. Having looked through sci.lang.japan so far, however, I cannot find anything useful. If anyone has any verifiable references from that chat forum, by all means, please post them for discussion. Finally, I agree with Jim Lockhart that it's dangerous to insist that inaccurate material is better than none. J Readings 16:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoah nelly! This is getting ridiculous.  Kojien gives two definitions for gaijin, with the examples quoted in the article, which are 「仲間以外の人. 疎遠の人. 」 and 「敵視すべき人」.  You (POV) may think that this definition is erroneous, but unfortunately(?) it's an indisputable, non-POV fact that they are defined as such in Kojien.  If you have another reference to 言海 or 古語大辞典 or whatever that gives different meanings for the example phrases, then please, by all means, insert it.


 * FWIW, the article currently flatly states that "gaijin is a common abbreviation for gaikokujin". I actually agree with this assertion &mdash; but where's your reference that it is, in fact, just an abbreviation, as opposed to a continuation of the usage of Heike Monogatari or whatever? Jpatokal 19:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No one has written that Kojien’s glosses are erroneous; as I wrote above, the problem is in the synthesis—and perhaps some people’s interpretation of what 敵視すべき means (I interpret it to mean “[someone] to beware of, treat with caution or suspicion,” not “[someone] one should look upon as an enemy”; but I suppose that’s neither here nor there). I would rather wait for J Reading’s research results than just rewrite the section with what I (we?) have now, because I think spending too much time on it while this is all still up in the air would be a waste of time. Fwiw, Jim_Lockhart 00:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I will make an effort to sit myself down, and type up my notes this weekend. Again, thanks for your patience. Incidentally, and just as a quick correction to something stated above, Kojien gives three definitions (not two) for the word gaijin. The third definition is supposed to explain its current usage, according to the dictionary, which simply states that gaijin is a contraction of gaikokujin (pg. 438, 5th ed., 1998). I'm not saying that this gloss resolves anything because there are several other issues at stake with the etymology section. My only point in mentioning it here is that if the article is going to assert that gaijin is an ethnic slur or carries a pejorative connotation, Kojien cannot be cited to make that point---not that Jpatokal was suggesting it, mind you. I don't think he was. Best,J Readings 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear: I don’t think Jpatokal was (or is) making any of the problem assertions; but I do believe the text he put back does, especially the example cited. It’s all a matter of balance, if you (generic you) follow my drift. And don’t ruin your weekend for this, J, ’specially if the weather’s beautiful—in another couple of weeks, there’s likely to be a whole string of weekends when we’re all sort of rained-in!  Regards, Jim_Lockhart 23:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)