Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Discussions on merging can, as usual, be carried out on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Look at Japanese diaspora, Issei, Nisei, Sansei and compare with each other. This nominated article is absolutely "redundant" because the content is just copy/paste from other related articles:Isei, Nisei, Sansei. The article has no difference from them except the numbering in title. Besides, Wikipedia is not a dictionary to denote literal meanings of some word. Sansei also should be in consideration for merging with Japanese diaspora or Nisei as well because of the same reason.

I propose this AFD here instead of merger because I'm afraid that I can discuss with who has written some inappropriate rants to the talk page of the article in question. Edit wars at Nisei and WP:OWNERSHIP issues as well as some unpleasant history are all in consideration. He resents that I made Yonsei back to WP:DAB page, but just google the term. Most of entries are related to Yonsei University. Of course, I did some research with time. Yale, Harvard, and Todai, Waseda redirect their pertaining article, and those have separate DAB page just like Yale (disambiguation). However, instead of redirecting Yonsei to Yonsei University just like the examples, I chose to back to Yonsei to the original DAB page. Since Yonsei University is dominantly found in web and I was convinced that the move of Yonsei, the fourth generation of Japanese-American was a due course regardless of the poor article status. Issei, nisei are dealt significantly in history of immigration because of some relevance with WW2 but not Yonsei which is just mentioned to denote the "literal meanings" in spuriously provided sources to the article (just check them). I would not be surprised even if "Gosei" (fifth generation) and "Rokusei" (sixth generation) would be created sooner or later per such track which should not happen though. Also look around other articles related to diaspora, there is no such article divided by generation. With the reasons, Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei) and Sansei do not need to have its "separate article".--Caspian blue 15:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See aslo Talk:Yonsei Severance Hospital[


 * Please keep in mind to present your opinion succinctly and clearly, and be civil and no personal attacks. Thanks.--Caspian blue 05:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Japanese diaspora 70.55.84.27 (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. --Tenmei (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. --Tenmei (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --Tenmei (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. --Tenmei (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Tenmei (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. --Tenmei (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think that Yonsei should remain as a separate article because of generational, cultural, and other differences with Issei, Nisei, and Sansei.  Most Yonsei are now in their 20s, 30s, and 40s so the time is right to develop an article.  I do agree, however, that the article requires editing and additional information pertaining specifically to Yonsei.  Perhaps, for example, someone could add intermarriage percentages for Yonsei.  I believe that some people will not intuitively go to the Japanese diaspora article to find Yonsei.  Keeping the articles separate will retain multiple entryways and thereby increase the number of people who are able access the information for Yonsei and for the various links within the article.  I also believe that combining Yonsei and Nisei will blur the distinction between the two terms.  Yonsei are separate and not a subset of Nisei. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DA19 (talk • contribs) 2008-11-12T05:35:34 (UTC)


 * Keep per reasoning articulated by DA19.
 * The ambit of this article encompasses bibliographic references, in-line citations and a table which clarifies the generational relationships in related emigrant/immigrant terms. At present, the article also identifies internal links to articles about illustrative exemplars of notability:


 * Gina Hiraizumi
 * Grant Imahara


 * Paul Kariya
 * Garret T. Sato


 * Mike Shinoda
 * Rachael Yamagata
 * Kristi Yamaguchi


 * In this context, the unclear rationale which informs this AfD thread continues to elude me. The stricken sentence was a polite fiction; and that kind of conventional courtesy has no real place here.


 * It is exceedingly plain that Caspian blue is trying to make a point, flaunting the ineffective niceties of Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. It's just not clear what that point is supposed to be?  What does continue to elude me is this:  What, if anything, could have been addressed more constructively? --Tenmei (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It should be noted that DA19 is the creator of the article, and is the one who just copied and pasted the same contents including a non-PD poem for purely a decorative purpose or an attempt to prevent the article from deletion. Sansei, and Yonsei had the "bogus inter wikis" inserted by  all of which do not even have articles at Japanese Wikipedia unlike Tenmei's insistence for the article's importance. The latter individual should remind especially No Personal Attack and WP:DISRUPTION because of his various inappropriate behaviors to related pages. People are here to discuss the issue not come to feel irritation and fatigue. The article is as pointed out, redundant. The notable people's list does not justify why the article should be kept, just like the unexplained poem's existence. The authors would better explain what is the role of the articles.--Caspian blue 19:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not persuaded that Caspian blue's concerns have not been framed in a manner which can be addressed; however, Notability identifies a more easily approached set of issues. The mere fact that book publishers consider Issei, Nisei, Sansei and Yonsei as independent, worthy, and potentially profit-making subjects for publication becomes sufficient in satisfying the very minimal wiki-standards of notability. The further fact that academic or scholarly journals have published articles about the Japanese Brazilian, Japanese American, Japanese Canadian, and Japanese Peruvian and other Issei, Nisei, Sansei and Yonsei becomes an additional demonstration of wiki-notability.


 * My modest intentions here are not focused on bringing this initial text to "Featured Article" status. I'm glad to leave that hard work to others who may contribute to this article in the months and years ahead.  My narrowly-focused objective at this point is simply to assist in constructing an adequate first-draft foundation from which others can feel comfortable building.


 * Re: Cut-and-paste -- The following struck-out sentences were posted briefly, then edited-out at the same moment Caspian blue was posting the comment below. In part, Caspian blue was responding to this text; and when I discovered the edit conflict, it should have been promptly restored. I didn't recognize that this was needed until after several re-readings. --Tenmei (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To that end, I did use-cut-and-paste in modifying DA19 work; and this seems so obvious that I wonder why it's even mentioned by Caspian blue in this thread. I admit freely that I used text from Issei, Nissei, and Sansei as something of a boilerplate overlay. My plan was to replicate a structural format which would organizationally link the corollary articles; and I know of no wiki-prohibitions which would have or should have discouraged this practice.


 * In fact, to a large extent, I applied a similar boilerplate strategy in populating the extended array of articles at List of Emperors of Japan and at Japanese era names; and I fine-tuned this strategy in articles about the Canadian Pacific Steamships fleet. The fact-of-the-matter is that this is a variant wiki-hoax.  There is not now nor was there ever any arguable basis for nominating this article for deletion.  The conspicuous absence of Caspian blue from any talk page thread which discussed perceived problems in Yonsei before it was arbitrarily re-named is telling.  That this AfD thread was initiated as an afterthought is revealing. The functional purpose of this thread is disruptive -- nothing more.


 * The oblique purpose of this thread is to distract attention from yet another variant wiki-hoax contrived by Caspian blue at Yonsei. Structure and substance are at times arguably conflated, but I don't see how this accounts for the escalating, accusatory tenor of Caspian blue's language. Bluntly -- succinctly: These are wrongly chosen venues for an unhelpful proxy dispute with dimensions of Korean and Japanese nationalism.


 * Caveat lector. --Tenmei (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Still, keep failing to address that why the individual articles about Sansei and Yonsei are important and should be kept being separated from Nisei or Japanese diaspora. If this subject is notable, how so? You're only resorting to personal attacks which are so pathetic attempts but very familiar. We've seen that 's usual way of communication are as such: can't stop himself being disruptive. The subject and approach of List of Emperors of Japan and Japanese era names and the funny ambition are totally irrelevant to the subject in question. We're talking about the current article based on possible potentials and notability, but I don't see any of them from the article nor your insistence. Please provide propable "logic" instead of your usual tactic: resorting "personal attacks" and rambling. I checked your sources which only just briefly mention about the meaning of "Yonsei". If the term is so important, you should've addressed Yonsei's demography, population, roles, legacy, relation with Japan or their parent generation in American or Australian societies, but there is none except overlapped contents with Nisei. That's why I call the article "redundant". I know you want to make this like a battle between Korea and Japanese nationalism per your disruptive AFDs stemmed from your Ownership issues just about two months ago. However, you already edit warred with another user for the same matter questioned as this and you failed to answer his question just like this time. So why don't you bring some "logic" if you have any (I doubt though).--Caspian blue 21:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to either, but both appear to be university press, significant coverage of the subject. To me, that equals notability, and I believe Wikipedia policy agrees with me here (if few places else :-) Dekkappai (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Normally I'd work on the article before !voting, but this is such a big subject, and the article is in such disarray, that I'll just add a few sources. The sourcing I found showed that this generation is the subject of books and chapters from university presses. The subject is notable, the article needs work. Lots of work. This is no reason to delete it, but to work on it. Dekkappai (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Dekka, good to see you again. I seldom see you only when some AFD brings your attention. However, there are sources that are not used to the article (most of them just mention about the meaning briefly though). I know that you're attached to Japanese culture from your background, but still I don't see any evidence from your assertion that the subject is notable enough to have its own article. The content is just duplication except a few since its creation for months. At least Sansei is featured in dictionary, yonsei is not although the article of Sansei is poor in status. Can you tell me your reason more clearly? Thanks.--Caspian blue 03:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Caspian, good to see you too. Obviously the yonsei are a younger generation with less literature on them than the issei & nisei, but already a quick search showed that there are already university writings on the subject... Our feelings for or against the subject are irrelevant. I don't assert on my own that the subject is notable-- the fact that the subject is covered in multiple reliable sources indicates it's notable. Hopefully someone who has access to those sources can use them to expand and improve the article. (Though I don't think it should be deleted, the subject doesn't really interest me enough to do much work on it. So I'll bow out now. Regards.) Dekkappai (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the fact that most of them are just addressing "literal meanings" unlike Baby boomers. Before I nominated this article for deletion, I did look through diaspora articles, but there is no such "detailed" division by generation in minority. The article has "developed" (actually just copying-pasting) for over 3 or 4 months, but still I don't see anything difference from Issei, Nissei.--Caspian blue 04:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I just want to make sure the sources to which I'm referring don't get ignored in the on-going discussion:
 * Reidun, Renée and H Johansen-Khan. (1987). Ethnic Identity of Sansei and Yonsei Japanese American High School Students in California and Hawaii. University of California.
 * Takahata, Carrie. (2002). "Making Yonsei" in Okamura Jonathan (ed.) The Japanese American Contemporary Experience in Hawaii. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 0-824-82687-6


 * Snow keep. Here's over 600 books (all searchable online) that may help. AfD is not clean-up even if there is content disputes or more complex article and project organization issues at hand. -- Banj e  b oi   13:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a particularly accurate count. Even on the first page of that Google result, you see references to Yonsei Medical Journal.  A lot of search results refer to Yonsei University simply by the word Yonsei or Yonsei U or Yonsei Univ, or they refer to terms related to Yonsei University, like Yonsei Medical Journal.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we can be assured that out of those 600+ at least a handful are quite helpful to showing sources exist. -- Banj e  b oi   04:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. To more constructively address noms concerns, I suggest transcluding a discussion on the various article talkpages how to clearly show some of the unique characteristics that have been attributed to each generation. If a handy template linking the articles doesn't yet exist that may also be helpful for the average reader to point out the parent article(s) and the various offshoots and break-outs. -- Banj e  b oi   13:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Right-- over 600 books that mention or discuss the yonsei generation. That's including two university works-- one chapter and one book-- specifically on the yonsei generation. I don't want to speculate here as to the reasons behind this AfD, but it seems to have been instigated by a content/disambiguation dispute, as well as a long-standing editor conflict. Needless to say, neither of these is at all reason to bring an article to AfD, much less to delete it. Dekkappai (talk) 14:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The subject itself is only notable within the context of the subject of Japanese Americans and the Japanese diaspora, both of which have articles of their own already. Though there are plenty of sources about Japanese Americans, Japanese immigration and diaspora, etc., I can't find any sources on the subject of Yonsei itself - at the very most, it is written about together with the Sansei generation - which makes sense, because Sansei and Yonsei are basically post-WW2 Japanese American generations and they share the same characteristics.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Hong, you had a chance here to prove my evaluation of your motives in the Japan-related articles wrong, and you blew it, naturally. "...Sansei and Yonsei are basically post-WW2 Japanese American generations and they share the same characteristics."... oh yeah, and you tried to erase the Nisei article too... Your analysis of this generation of Japanese-Americans, while of interest to you, is of no use to Wikipedia. We go by experts in the subject and the sourcing they produce. And the sourcing shows, overwhelmingly, that the subject is notable. Now, about that speculation as to the reason behind this AfD-- and Chinese and Korean editors' recent efforts to erase Japanese-American topics: Here is the reason: racism. I use that word carefully and with considerable thought. There are reasons (but NOT excuses) for you China- and Korea-related editors to have a bias against Japan. That is understandable, but still NOT to be tolerated here at Wikipedia. But for you to carry this hatred on to Japanese-Americans-- descendants of people who came here before WWII, and who fought on YOUR side-- that is RACISM. Caspian, consider our cooperation on Korea-related articles finished. I have long tried to believe you were just a "normal" Korean nationalis/Japan-hater. But this AfD, and your marshelling in the Chinese brigade proves my assumption of good faith to be totally wrong. Dekkappai (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, Dekkappai, please calm down. The nomination on the "duplicated poor" article is equal to mean "Anti-Japanese" marshelling? As I said, I don't agree with your assessment on CJK subjects and users. That is your long-term BIAS. Rather, your right above comment is just personal attacks based on RACISM. I know you've been conflicting with Hong over numerous AFDs for Japanese porn stars. However, Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia providing "useful info" to readers. A funny thing is that as you're well aware of that, 2channel Japanese people often call you "anti-Japanese American" degrading overall images of Japan with useless obscene articles." So point of view is depending on people. It is regretful to reconfirm that you're not neutral in this and are confusing the issue in question with your own problem. If I were the author of the article, I would add some to prove that the article is important enough to have its own article not just adding "unused sources" or would not waste time attacking the nominator. The only reason I let "one person" (unlike Tenmei) know of this is he was disputing with the author for the same reason I have in mind about the "duplicated articles". Please don't drag your problems with Hong into here and I wish you retract the incivility and personal attacks here.--Caspian blue 18:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Caspian blue -- Just wondering if you're sure you don't want to pull back a little bit? Maybe you might have  over-reached? Maybe a modest degree of restraint would better serve? --Tenmei (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)  Tentative invitation to think again is withdrawn. Plausible outreach is unlikely to be construed as constructive gesture. --Tenmei (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Dekkappai - hey look, I admire some of the editing you do on WP, but you are way off base here with your accusation of racism. But I'm not going to diverge the discussion with some drawn-out explanation and argument about why you're wrong.  It's irrelevant to this AfD.  So let's discuss the merit of my argument instead.  I never said the subject matter is not notable.  I said it is only notable within the context of the subject of Japanese Americans and the Japanese diaspora, both of which already have their own articles.  If not a deletion of this article, then at least Sansei and Yonsei ought to share one article.  Seriously, I challenge anyone to find published sources that highlight a substantial difference between the Sansei and Yonsei generations.  Regarding the article for Nisei - I don't think the article ought to be deleted.  I only think it should be renamed and retooled to become an article about Japanese American involvement in the US military in WW2.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hong Qi Gong -- Just wanting to make sure that you don't want to re-think this comment? Perhaps you might want to revise or strike out part of this posting?  Just checking? --Tenmei (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)  Tentative invitation to think again is withdrawn. Plausible outreach is unlikely to be construed as constructive gesture. --Tenmei (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge Japanese diaspora is not so long that it can't take the content. Most of the current content on Yonsei (fourth-generation Nikkei) is not bound to a specific generation.  Also the generational assimilation or lack thereof is content that is best suited for the overarching article.  If and when the content on specific generation causes the parent article to grow to long it can be spun out. Taemyr (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge, though some new article like Nikkei immigrant generations (along the lines of the existing Immigrant generations article to which 1.5 generation and similar terms redirect) to cover Issei, Nisei, Sansei, Gosei, etc. would probably be a more appropriate target than Japanese diaspora --- not all populations of Japanese overseas identify with or use these terms (like Japanese people in the United Kingdom). Further, Yonsei should remain a disambiguation page --- as it was TWO YEARS AGO before the ethnocentrists came in and started doing copy-paste move warring to get it to refer solely to their own country's term (regardless of the fact that both usages feature prominently in the first page of GBooks hits --- WP:TROUTs all around). cab (talk) 02:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * CaliforniaAliBaba -- Just want to make sure I've understood you correctly? It would appear that  you're labeling me ethnocentric -- a very interesting gambit?  I don't want to misunderstand, misconstrue, misread?  Just wanting to make sure that what seems like specificity isn't misplaced, misjudged, misconstrued? Two choices are possible -- either reign it in or "go for it?"  Which will you choose? --Tenmei (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)  Tentative invitation to think again is withdrawn. Plausible outreach is unlikely to be construed as constructive gesture. --Tenmei (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.