User talk:Expatlecturer

Gaijin
Thank you for your contribution to the gaijin article. Since you seem to feel pretty strongly about this, would you prefer that we use dispute resolution mechanism or something along those lines? You can make your case as best you can with the sources you have and the assertions you're making, and I'll present my case. Does that sound fair enough to you? J Readings 03:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read your contributions in the discussion page. It is obvious that you are presenting from a POV regarding the term not being a racial slur, despite a wealth of information being presented to you to the contrary. I would be happy to simply include the fact that the term is considered and used by some as a racial slur, provide a couple of references and leave it at that Expatlecturer 03:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, but I'm not sure if I understand. Are you against a dispute resolution on this matter? As I said previously on the talk page, I have no problem with adding material by reliable third-party sources that are offer a peer review process, don't engage in undue weight, and back up the claims made (e.g., Gottlieb). However, using words like "many people" opens up a huge can of worms, according to Wikipedia policies. More importantly, the references you are citing are *not* peer reviewed, not found in newspapers, journals, or books -- and more importantly, explicitly state that they are not to be taken seriously. As for Jim Breen's personal homepage, I would be happy for the admins and third-party editors to comment on that one. Breen is not a linguist, as you know, and from the looks of the page, he didn't publish it anywhere so it was not subject to a peer review. Those create problems for inclusion. Best, J Readings 03:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we are talking across each other. You are looking at the word form a linguistic perspective. I am looking at it from a usage and social perspective. I suggest you take a look at the following: Michio Kitahara (1983) Popular Culture in Japan: A Psychoanalytic Interpretation The Journal of Popular Culture xvii (1), 103–110 as well as Japanese Society: The "Inside" Perspective by Non-Japanese Journal of Japanese Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Summer, 1985), pp. 442-449 and then come back and we can discuss. They are not available in electronic format freely on the web. Expatlecturer 03:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note. Please keep in mind two things: (1) this article is about the word gaijin (its etymology and citable usage); and (2) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that requires reliable third-party sources for any contentious claims made (please see WP:RS). I'm familiar with Susan Hanley's "Japanese Society: The 'Inside' Perspective by Non-Japanese" which is simply a review essay of 5 other books. Hanley is not making any judgments herself on the nature, etymology, or usage of the word. In fact, re-reading her essay, she clearly mentions gaijin only as a synonym for the word "foreigner" and, then, only in relation to Jared Taylor's Shadow of the Rising Sun: a Critical Review of the 'Japanese Miracle. Indeed, even in the case of Taylor's book, no mention is made in the essay that the word gaijin is a "racial slur" which, you keep asserting needs to be in the article because it's supposedly so well-documented (I wish it were). Again, I have to ask you to provide reliable third-party sources for any controversial claim made per Wikipedia's policies: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.


 * I haven't read Michio Kitahara's essay, but I'll be visiting the library tomorrow to do some other research so I will be sure to look that one up, too. Thanks for mentioning it. I'll get back to you on that one.


 * As for the other sources you cite, I disagree: they really aren't appropriate for a serious encyclopedia article. The ones listed in the article right now are from private homepages with no apparent editorial oversight mechanism as is the case with reputable newspapers, journals, and books. You're welcome to bring the matter to an arbitration committee at WP:RS, for example, to field their opinions but I doubt they will accept them. Here's why. Your first citation comes from "the Racial Slur database." This is one page with no explanation on the background of the editors, their editorial structure, or how they research the words. Indeed, at the bottom of the page it reads: "The original Racial Slur Database © 1999-2007, ryan(at)fuck.org. This database was created entirely from data gleaned off the 'net and via submissions from people like you and your parents. It's supposed to be funny and/or informational. Calm down." Such a statement does not build confidence in research reliability, especially when they also state: anyone can "submit hate." There's no way to tell how rigorous their research methods are, which is why Wikipedia requires reliable sources.


 * Your second source (Roadjunky.com) is also problematic. No mention is made of who wrote the article; the "about us" page does no indicate that any of the contributors are bona fide journalists, let alone academics or notable authors; and the site's "about us" section describes itself as "by no means the authority on the world." All of this in addition to the fact that Roadjunky.com is not a mainstream source, and cannot be used to support the assertion that "[gaijin] is considered a racial slur by many to whom the word is applied too."


 * Your third source ("Does America Say Yes to Japan?") is interesting. For a second, I was going to agree with you that this gentleman should be cited as one of the few within the minority who seem to find the word to be derogatory in the usage section (like Arudou via Gottlieb). Here's the problem with this source: (1) where was it published?, (2) why can't I find any mention of this article in Lexis-Nexis or Factiva or JSTOR or Amazon.com?; and (3) If it's an academic publication, why are they insisting that it be distributed electronically on personal homepages? (When do academics do that?). Indeed, your fourth source is just a repetition of your third source (but also on someone's personal homepage, rather than in a reputable publisher's book or journal.)


 * These three sources (four if we include Susan Hanley) do not support your assertion that "[gaijin] is considered a racial slur by many (emphasis added) to whom the word is applied." In fact, when you consider all of the publicly verifiable dictionary entries (English and Japanese), and other authors and academics who say the exact opposite, then we definitely need to have reliable third-party sources lest we all get accused of pushing fringe theories per WP:Fringe.


 * That said, I still welcome other sources. I'm slowly but surely re-writing the article in my free time off-line and I would be happy to include any reputable sources to be placed in the minority section of Usage. Best regards, J Readings 08:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Notice: Perhaps you have not noticed the talk page for Gaijin. Please take a look at it and participate in the discussion there before continuing to edit Gaijin. Thank you. Bendono 10:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR Violation
Hi Expatlecturer, this is to inform you that you are now in violation of WP:3RR as you have reverted edits more than 3 times over the past 24 hours (despite User:Bendono warning everyone on the gaijin talk page). If you were unaware of this, that's okay. Please just undo you last edit and let's talk about this. Failure or refusal to comply will most likely lead to administrative action of some kind. Regards, J Readings 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.

In his book "Multiethnic Japan" By John Lie - a book which published by Harvard University press and therefore clearly usable as a source according the the Wikipedia policy on sources - states the following: "The shift from gaijin to gaikokujin denoted not only that the new foreign workers were not white but was also an effort to rectify discriminatory language. Whereas gaijin was deemed discriminatory, gaikokujin was deemed proper. I was admonished several times for not to use the term gaijin rodosah because gaijin expressed the exclusionary, or xenophobic, spirit of the Japanese people" (pg 20). This is but one example of the term Gaijin being described as derogatory term by a source that meets the requirements for Wikipedia citation. As such the article needs to be amended to reflect that the view held by some (weather a minority or majority is debatable) people find the term offensive and derogatory. It does not matter if it is a minority position. It is fact, not point of view. I have no objection to the rest of the article. My interest is not the history or evolution of the word but it's current usage as a racial slur (in some circumstances). At the very least the article must contain a direct reference to this fact. The main focus on the article need not be on this fact, but it must be mentioned. I will continue to edit the article to reflect this fact. Expatlecturer 05:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Expatlecturer, please feel free to include John Lie's quotation (preferably in one short, crisp sentence) to the Usage section. Having just re-read the passage myself from my bookshelf, it's a good one to reflect Lie's experiences, and I have no objections to it. However, if you continue to make the sweeping claim that the word is considered to be a racial slur based on this one citation (and insist that it goes in the introduction), you're placing undue weight (see WP:UNDUE) on the nature of the article. Here's why (read below VERY carefully please):


 * 1. Dictionaries (both English and Japanese) don't support your assertion that it's a racial slur.
 * 2. Several expert linguists don't support your assertion that it's a racial slur.
 * 3. The previously cited academics and authors you mentioned (Michio Kitahara and Samuel Jared Taylor) don't support your assertion that it's a racial slur.
 * 4. Ministry of Education officials don't support your assertion that it's a racial slur.
 * 5. Official journalist and television broadcasting handbooks don't support your assertion that it's a racial slur.
 * 6. And several published authors and journalists don't support your assertion that it's a racial slur.


 * Granted, there are two sources so far that object (Gottlieb and now Lie). I have no problem with their inclusion in the Usage section. And personally, I don't like the word very much, either. But my personal beliefs are irrelevant for this encyclopedia article. This is a serious article that requires serious sources, and as Wikipedia policy states: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. And making that assertion in the intro is an "exceptional claim," I think. Best, J Readings 05:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have taken note of the policies thus far and will bring forward more data. Wikipedia policy DOES allow the use of news articles if they are from a 'reputable' source. I think point 1 i moot - dictionaries are notoriously slow to update words to modern usage. The second part i disagree with, but as i have not (yet) found sources to back my position i will leave that point for the moment. Point three is a matter (i think) of interpretation - once my books arrive at my new house (have moved country recently) i will dig them out and re-check. Point 4 is also moot. A major criticism of Japanese officials is lack of recognition of the problem of racism (see here for an example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4671687.stm ) and as such, statements from officials from a country that is (arguably) in denial about it's racism is not proof to my mind that the term is not a racial slur. Point 5 i would disagree with as i have already found a number of mainstream english media sources carrying articles on the usage of the term gaijin as a derogatory comment, but am compiling a comprehensive list of these articles AND researching the background of the organizations that carry these articles. As for point 6, my research so far has shown mixed results. There are direct references to it being used as a derogatory comment but little in the way of actual research that focuses SOLELY on the issue of the word. Indeed, i noted to comments you made in an earlier section where you referred to Minoru Wada, acknowledging that some foreign english teachers "mistakenly take offense". That is his OPINION that they "Mistakenly" took offense to the word. However, that only futher verifies that some people DO take OFFENSE to the term (mistakenly or not) and only serves to reinforce my comments on point 4 that you raised. To my mind, that quote you provided from Wada only adds weight to the position that the term is considered derogatory and offensive by some "mistakenly" or not. I will proceed, over the next few days to write a short (1-2 lines) section for the usage that conveys the FACT that some people find it derogatory and offensive, cite Wada as an example (OK?) and refrain from using ALL or MANY in the sentences. We can then take a look at see how to progress the article from there. Expatlecturer 07:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the interesting reply, Expatlecturer. Let me please say one thing --- and this is meant to help you, not hinder you. The reason that you've encountered so much resistance from established editors so far is simply because you don't seem to fully understand Wikipedia culture and policies. This happens to all editors in the beginning, you're certainly not alone, and it's not meant to be an insult. I also understand that you're trying to be constructive, and I certainly encourage you to make a great contribution to the article with genuine research. But before you dive into the article and want to mix things up, let me just suggest a few constructive approaches (that were usefully suggested to me long ago and Bendono already suggested to you) to get your colleagues behind you 100% and want to work with you:


 * (1) Before adding contentious or potentially contentious edits, try posting your proposals to the talk page in order to get constructive feedback and criticisms (believe me, it works!);


 * (2) memorize by heart the 5 pillars of Wikipedia:


 * 1. Wikipedia: "What Wikipedia is not" summarizes what Wikipedia is, and what it is not. (see WP:NOT)
 * 2. Wikipedia: "Neutral point of view" Wikipedia's core approach, neutral unbiased article writing. (see WP:NPOV)
 * 3. Wikipedia: "No original research" what is, and is not, valid information. (see WP:NOR)
 * 4. Wikipedia: "Verifiability" what counts as a verifiable source and how a source can be verified. (see WP:V)
 * 5. Wikipedia: "Citing sources" sources should be cited, and the manner of doing so. (see WP:CITE)


 * and (3) modify your edits to the basic and useful citation templates at your disposal such as this one here.


 * Yes, there are a lot more rules that pop up along the way such as WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, among others, but these 5 are the most important right up front. I guarantee you, follow them and you're not likely to be disappointed. Best regards, J Readings 12:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)