Talk:Gaman (term)

Self-published source
Just one inline citation was deleted from the last paragraph. It has been moved here for discussion because the cite refers to a self-published source:
 * <:ref>Leonard, Todd Jay (2003).

The publisher is iUniverse. Am I correct to construe WP:RS as justification for removing any citation from any article if this is the publisher. Is there a better way to handle this small problem? In other words, I do not question the accuracy of the material cited, only the publisher. If Letters Home were not self-published, this would be a non-issue. --Tenmei (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A blog is like a self-published source -- for example, here. I cannot guess why this blog entry was substituted for a published source; but I did notice that the deletion here. In addition, the reference source was removed here. The former inline citation and bibliographic reference source citation are restored here. --Tenmei (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree about the self-published source not begin used. Good catch, I didn't pick up on that. I had also used it to describe a "study" which is isn't good for a non-WP:RS.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Bundling
Inter-related problems of content and format are tangled as if in a kind of Gordian Knot:

The explicit asserted facts in this paragraph are not easily matched up with supporting source citations:
 * Content.
 * Gaman is also described as a process, law, virtue, ethos, trait and culture. It means to do one's best in distressed times and to maintain self-control and discipline.

In other words, it is not immediately obvious where to look for verification of each explicit noun listed, e.g.,


 * "process" -- verified by which explicit citation(s)?
 * "law" -- verified by which explicit citation(s)]? <:ref>"Crushed, but true to law of gaman," The Australian (Australia), 16 March 2011; headline excerpt, "...true to law of gaman"
 * "virtue" -- verified by which explicit citation(s)?<:ref>"Japanese resilience shines in light of tragedy,"CTV Ottawa (Canada), 19 March, 2011; excerpt, "... "it can't be helped," as well as the virtue "gaman" which defies easy translation, ... "


 * "ethos" -- verified by which explicit citation(s)? <:ref>Arnold, Wayne. "Enduring the unendurable," Business Standard (India). 15 March 2011; excerpt, "Experience with crises has shaped the Japanese ethos of “gaman” — “enduring the unendurable”. Even after the March 11 disaster ...."
 * "trait" -- verified by which explicit citation(s)? <:ref>Jones, Clayton. "A nuclear meltdown in Japan? Not if these brave workers can help it," Christian Science Monitor(US). March 15, 2011; excerpt, "One noble trait that the Japanese admire is gaman. It is their word for the ability to persevere, endure, and overcome, with patience .... Japan may remember them for their gaman despite personal exposure to dangerous levels of radiation
 * "culture" -- verified by which explicit citation(s)?

Explicit words were removed from the article text; however, in the following excerpts from this one cited source, I can't readily identify explicit connections with the exact words above:
 * 1) "Values such as perseverance or endurance, will-power and self control (gaman) and social proscriptions against drawing attention to oneself or problems ...."
 * 2) "Demonstrating gaman signals maturity and strength in adversity ..."
 * 3) "... gaman is a means of negotiating cultural expectations to remain silen about one's 'private' difficulties or problems when perceived alternative solutions appear minimal."
 * 4) "... the value placed on demonstrating gaman also serves to inhibit both women and criminal justice personnel from defining and treting much of the vioence directed at women as criminal behaviour."

A related problem is the format -- see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Bundling citations.
 * Format.

What to do next is unclear to me? This talk page thread is a first step. --Tenmei (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I re-added the descriptions back into the lead as I didn't feel this discussion was enough to remove them and I think it is a bit too pedantic. It is in the references. I had thought of addin citations for the different words, most of which were references already in the article. I thought about putting a citation next to each word but I thought that would be too much for a sentence in the lead. I will work on this and read the rest of your comments here today. Thanks for the work on the article by the way.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * NortyNort -- No, WP:V + WP:CITE are not pedantic. Please re-examine your reasons for using this word in this specific context. Perhaps you will reconsider; and I hope you will recognize that core values are crucial in the process of ensuring the academic credibility of the articles in our Wikipedia project. --Tenmei (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with the way it is now. My concern was with the citations as the "descriptions" weren't without a source and most of the references were used in the body or later bunched up at the end of the sentence. With that, I didn't think it had to be removed, just formatted. I hate citations in a lead but sometimes you have to do it. With the descriptions, I wanted to give readers a good idea of what context gaman has been used in. I also saw and sizable spectrum of definitions, but didn't want to list all of them. What is in the article suffices.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable source
The following text was removed here and restored here:
 * At times, Gaman has been misperceived as introverted behavior or as a lack of assertiveness or initiative rather than as a demonstration of strength in the face of difficulty or suffering.<:ref>Niiya, Brian. (1993)., citing Betty S. Furuta, (1981). "Ethnic Identities of Japanese-American Families: Implications for Counseling," in Understanding the Family: Stress and Change in American Family Life (Cathleen Gerry and Winnifred Humphreys, eds.), pp. 200-231, 212.

The sentence and its cited support can be discussed? --Ansei (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The only fault I can see with the source and text is that the author referred to the Issei. Some of it could be put in quotes as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 18:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The source states: "Betty S Furuta asserts that [gaman] is mistaken by many non-Japanese to indicate a lack of assertiveness or initiative rather than strength in the face of difficulty and suffering." Furuta is a nurse, not a cultural anthropologist or something similar. Her assertion on this topic is hardly expert opinion. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * She isn't your regular type of nurse, but of psychiatric and mental health. She spent a lot of time teaching in Japan and is published. I would consider her a reliable source.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what kind of nurse she is, she still isn't an expert on culture. She might be published, but not in a relevant field. Having spent time in Japan doesn't make her opinion any more reliable. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In this specific cite, the meaning of "reliable source" includes three relevant factors
 * that Betty Furuta wrote something
 * that the editors and publishers of Understanding the Family: Stress and Change in American Family Life (1981) confirmed the validity of the words and the credibility of the writer by including it in their book
 * that the editor and publisher of Japanese American History: An A-to-Z Reference from 1868 to the Present (1993) re-confirmed both validity and credibility by including Furuta's analysis it in another book
 * The bundled citation shows more than one layer of proof of reliability. Is this not good enough for the context in which Furuta is cited? --Ansei (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)




 * The fact that something a book chapter has been published doesn't "confirmed the validity of the words and the credibility of the writer." Being cited in another book doesn't "re-confirm both validity and credibility." She's a psychiatric nurse. She has no expertise in this area. The editors of the book in which her chapter was included don't either. In the second book, they merely stated that "Betty S Furuta asserts that..." That doesn't make her assertion reliable. See WP:RSOPINION. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * She was also cited with the same work in Hawaiʻi No Ka Oi: The Kamiya Family Trilogy (1995). She was cited multiple times in the book that is under question now as well. Reliability has been demonstrated. I don't think what is cited is an extraordinary claim as well. If you still disagree, please take it to the notice board.--NortyNort (Holla) 16:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Since we still have an issue, I have brought this to the attention of WP:RSN, please see the discussion.--NortyNort (Holla) 18:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please notice that WP:RS/N link is here. --Ansei (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gaman (term). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411103455/http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1E to http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/cgi-bin/wwwjdic.cgi?1E
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110324003321/http://www.news1130.com/news/world/article/198193--japanese-remain-calm-while-dealing-with-quake-aftermath to http://www.news1130.com/news/world/article/198193--japanese-remain-calm-while-dealing-with-quake-aftermath
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709100904/http://accjjournal.com/mastering-the-basics/2/ to http://accjjournal.com/mastering-the-basics/2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Gaman meaning "endure" is not a teaching of Zen Buddhism
This article is misleading in suggesting that "gaman", in the sense depicted by this page, is a tenet of Zen Buddhism. Check any Japanese dictionary, or even the Japanese version of this page. "Gaman" in Buddhism means "self-centeredness/arrogance" and does not mean "endure" as in colloquial Japanese.

The Great Dictionary of the Japanese Language (日本国語大辞典, Nihonkokugo Daijiten), basically the equivalent of the OED for Japanese, states that the word "gaman" perhaps evolved as follows: - (Buddhism) being self-centered; putting oneself above others (first known attestation c. 1120 AD) -> insisting on one's own way; being obstinate/stubborn; not showing weakness (first known attestation 1488 AD) -> enduring something; putting up with something (first known attestation 1915 AD)

The latter two senses are not associated with Buddhism. They are rather senses that evolved from the original Buddhist sense as a result of the word being used differently over time.

The last sense is the center of this article. It a very run-of-the-mill word, as much as "endure" or "put up with" are in English. It is not a Buddhist concept. I do not understand why the connection with Buddhism, which is merely etymological, needs to be so prominent. 2600:6C64:507F:AA6C:19FE:8CB9:5318:6F2D (talk) 02:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)