Talk:Japanese people in the Netherlands

Deletion
I can't be alone in questioning whether this article shouldn't be considered for deletion? At this point, I'm not proposing that an AfD thread needs to be initiated; but a number of issues are suggested by this stub. --Tenmei (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Found some sources, a little bit different focus than our usual articles about human migration, but good enough for now to prove notability. Creator has been repeatedly warned about writing articles which do not establish notability and which contain false statements about religions, languages, group names, WP:FLAGCRUFT, etc. cab (talk) 12:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the following Dutch demographic data would seem useful in the context of this thread -- not necessarily conclusive, but relevant.


 * A 2005 estimate of the ethnic origins of the Dutch citizenry reported the following:
 * 80.9% Dutch
 * 2.4% Indonesian (Indo-Dutch, South Moluccan)
 * 2.4% German
 * 2.2% Turkish
 * 2.0% Surinamese
 * 1.9% Moroccan
 * 0.8% Antillean and Aruban
 * 6.0% other
 * As currently drafted, it looks like Japanese people in the Netherlands stands outside the ambit of such statistics? If so, I'd guess that this could become a significant factor in any potential AfD discussion? --Tenmei (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No. An article on a topic which has an entire book written about it (Japanese people in the Netherlands) passes the primary notability criterion with flying colors. It does not matter if it "stands outside the ambit" of a high-level overview of Dutch census figures; every statement in the article is verified by non-trivial coverage in reliable sources such as academic journals, published books, newspapers, etc. Please read the list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions --- specifically WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST. cab (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Aha. This thread appears to be proceeding at cross-purposes. Perhaps CaliforniaAliBaba was correct to focus on WP:V and WP:N in a pre-AfD thread which has been entitled "Deletion" -- yes, probably? In any case, the strategy produced a constructive outcome. I had misconstrued the issues a hand in terms established in Articles for deletion/Japanese Guyanese. That article was deleted in due course; and applying similar standards, this one would encounter the same fate. --Tenmei (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Category framing dispute?
The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs distinguishes between expatriates living outside Japan and those who have non-Japanese nationalities. I'm persuaded that we would do well to be guided by that model. The differences in framing what is relevant becomes crucial.

This article should be categorized in Category:Japanese expatriates along with:
 * Japanese people in the Netherlands = Japanese expatriates in the Netherlands?
 * Japanese Guyanans = Japanese expatriates in Guyana?
 * Japanese people in Hong Kong = Japanese expatriates in Hong Kong?
 * Japanese expatriates in the United States?

However, in my view, this article should not have been encompassed within the context established by Japanese diaspora nor should it be categorized with Nikkei articles like


 * Japanese Brazilian
 * Japanese American
 * Japanese settlement in the Philippines
 * Japanese Canadian s 
 * Japanese Peruvian s 
 * Asian Argentine
 * Japanese British
 * Japanese Australian
 * Japanese Spaniard s 


 * Japanese Mexican
 * Japanese Bolivian
 * Japanese Chilean
 * Japanese Colombian
 * Japanese in Cuba
 * Japanese settlement in the Dominican Republic
 * Japanese Paraguayan
 * Japanese Uruguayan
 * Japanese Venezuelan


 * Issei
 * Nisei
 * Sansei

Consequences applied in other articles?
If the reasoning above makes sense, then it begs the following:


 * Japanese people in Hong Kong would need to be renamed Japanese expatriates in Hong Kong; and the article needs to be removed from Template:Japanese diaspora.


 * Japanese Costa Rican needs to be re-named Japanese expatriates in Costa Rica; and the article needs to be removed from Template:Japanese diaspora.


 * Japanese people in Russia would need to be re-named something like Japanese Russians in order to avoid further confusion with an as-yet unwritten article about Japanese expatriates in Russia.


 * In this context, Japanese people in North Korea remains anomalous, but not appropriate for inclusion in Template:Japanese diaspora.


 * Japanese Dutch? -- A new article needs to be created for those Dutch-born citizens of Japanese descent -- as in the case of the children and grand-children of the American-born, octogenarian artist Shinkichi Tajiri, who has lived in the Netherlands for fifty years, marrying two Dutch women and fathering Dutch children and grand-children of Japanese ethnic ancestry.

I hope that this attempt to parse the topics will clarify the issues to be evaluated. --Tenmei (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Problems:
 * "Japanese Dutch" and "Japanese Russians" are neologisms. Articles should not be titled by Wikipedian-invented names.
 * We should not be creating articles about non-notable populations. One Japanese American who went to the Netherlands does not make Dutch people of Japanese descent a notable population. This is a footnote on a Japanese people in the Netherlands article, at best.
 * The dividing line between nikkei and expatriate is a lot blurrier than you think, especially in America. What's the difference between a US-born "kaigaishijo" whose parents eventually decide to settle in the US, and a kid whose grandparents were interned back in 1942? Both of them are Japanese American by citizenship definition, as well as possibly by self-identification. The communities blend into each other.
 * This gets even worse when dealing with historical facts. Say Ichirou and his little brother Jirou all go to America in the late 1800s. Ichirou sticks around and has a kid, Jirou decides to go back to Japan after making a bit of money. Then Ichirou sends his kid back to Japan for school; the kid stays there after graduation. Who's an expatriate and who's a Nikkei? Who do you discuss on the Japanese American article and who on your hypothetical Japanese expatriates in the United States article? Does it change any if Ichirou's kid was born in Japan and came to America at one month of age?
 * I fail to see how the existing Japanese people in Russia fits into the nikkei category. The original wave of Japanese settlers in Vladivostok did not produce any nikkei roshiajin --- they all ran back to Japan after the Bolshevik revolution. Japanese POWs in the Soviet Union might be the closest thing to what you're thinking about.
 * A neutral form of title like "Japanese settlement in Fooland" might be the best solution to let all the facts be discussed in a single article, without the article contents contradicting the article title. Article lead could be something like "Japanese settlement in Fooland dates back to 190x. Today there are many Foolandians of Japanese descent (nikkei fuurandojin) as well as some Japanese expatriates in Fooland (zai-fuurando nihonjin)" cab (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your thoughtful response is a good one -- convincing, compelling, helpful. Without your contributions, I wouldn't have turned my attention to the kinds of questions this thread explored; and I see how the attempt to clarify my own thinking has clearly served to highlight the conceptual flaws you now address.  If only more discussion threads could manage to develop towards about such constructive consequences.


 * Good work.


 * The illustrative examples you present do manage to shed light on an array of issues which can't be resolved seriatim. Your focused questions do point out the fact that some subjects can only be discussed with fuzzy logic and in concert with other semi-congruent elements in an array.  In my view, this thread serves as a paradigm I probably need to understand more fully.


 * What now? What would you propose as a next step in this process?  --Tenmei (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, do you think "Japanese settlement in Fooland" is a good naming pattern? If so, I'll apply it to other articles going forwards ... enough banging our heads together, there's lots of cleanup left in this series. I guess the main important thing is to be careful with population statistics and figures, specifying whether they count people born in Japan, people with Japanese citizenship, all ethnic Japanese, etc. cab (talk) 12:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think "settlement" will serve; but for now, I've no alternates to propose -- nor am I too quick to discard the concept of "settlement/community" .... I just need a little more time to think about this.  While I ponder, can I divert your attention with a trivial issue?  As you may have noticed, the cohort of corollary Japanese diaspora articles includes titles which are both plural and singular (see above).  Up until now, I thought this made no difference because inevitably -- regardless of the title -- each of the articles will be variously construed to address the demographic cohort and the individual. The way in which the article is understood will vary, depending primarily on the point-of-view of the reader/user.  Any variation in titles represents a difference without a distinction; and I'm almost persuaded that this imprecision is a good thing.  I wonder if you think it matters whether these titles are uniformly singular or plural?  I wonder if this modest pivot point can provide a useful fulcrum for thinking about how to leverage a better title choice?  At this point, I need a little more time to re-consider my current notions about what might can or should be done next.


 * Look at it this way: How can we be said to be "butting heads" when I'm so plainly coming to recognize that your strategies in parsing a complex topic are more serviceable that the approaches I'm now casting aside? --Tenmei (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Statistics Netherlands
Although there is some dispute about the definition, Statistics Netherlands defines "Non-Western immigration" to include foreign nationals within its ambit. This is a little inconsistent with my understanding of "immigration/emigration," but this Dutch government viewpoint might be construed as closer to the way CaliforniaAliBaba parses these concepts? See, e.g.,
 * People with a foreign background?
 * Classification of population with foreign background?

Could this be relevant in the context of this article? At this point, I don't completely understand CaliforniaAliBaba's thinking, but I suspect that it appears to be more nuanced than my own. --Tenmei (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Japanese expatriates in the Netherlands. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kikkoman.co.jp/kiifc/foodculture/pdf_02/e_015_019.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905132733/http://crossroads.journalismcentre.com/2004/japanese-at-home-in-maastricht/ to http://crossroads.journalismcentre.com/2004/japanese-at-home-in-maastricht/

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) 11:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)