Talk:Gaijin/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Gaijin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

I just sliced the article

I don't think I actually removed any information... I just wanted to get rid of a lot of repetition that was dragging the article down. The only thing I axed entirely was the comment about "black" and "colored," which was incorrect based on every American and Commonwealth usage I know of. Sekicho 23:34, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

What about "ningai?" (人外)

This article could really use a portion about 人外, which is the really derogatory way to refer to a non-Japanese. Or would it be better served with its own article? I did see nesnad's comment in the history page, but I do remember hearing the term used when I lived in Japan. My Japanese is not very good, so I'm not an authority, but whether or not it's in a dictionary, I defintely remember it being used from time to time. Binkymagnus 02:13, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

I don't know if it is really used to mean something other than gaijin. In Japanese, it is common to change the order in words, like gomen -> mengo, and the changes in the connotation are usually insignificant. -- Taku 05:47, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

As explained to me, gaijin meant "overseas person," but ningai meant "ousdide of humanity" which sounds rather a bit worse. I have no idea if that's how Japanese people see it, but that's how a lot of gaijin like me had it explained to us. I wonder if there are differing perception between Japanese and non-Japanese (i.e. Japanese not thinking anything of it, but non-Japanese believing that ningai is really nasty). I don't know if there's any truth to this either, but one guy once explained to me that gaijin was used mainly for North American/European non-Japanese, while ningai was used for Southeast Asians, South Asians, and Africans. Or maybe the guy who gave me that explanation was just a racist jerk. Now that I think about it, he was at the very least a jerk, and based on some other things he had to say from time to time, a racist. But I'd be interested to hear what others think. Binkymagnus 01:35, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

You are somewhat missing the point. The word "jingai" is "invented" out of gaijin by Japanese who are annoyed of what they perceive as Caucasian whinging about the word "gaijin". The logic is like this. "If you insist on gaijin as projetive (when it is not), then we will make the word for you. How about jingain, reverse of gaijin but it mean you aren't human. How is that? Are you satisfied? Now you have proper target to be whinging about." Yoji Hajime

Nanbanjin

Since DannyWilde is repeatedly adding his unsourced ideas to Wikipedia and calling me a vandal for removing them, I think I will do him a favor by quoting a Japanese person who was talking about this on another website.

 I was surprised to see explanation (History) of the   following site a .
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaijin
 said >The word nanbanjin(（南蛮人）is still in use as a discriminatory word for foreigners in Japan today.

Ha,ha,ha this might ba a Dempa(デムパ). The person who wrote↑this↑seems to have a time machine.
This author seems to have received the influence from a specific Asian nations(特定アジア） strongly.
I want to know the Japanese who is using the word Nanbanjin（南蛮人） not in Joke.
My recognition of the history of Japan to foreigner (people in Western Europe) is as follows.
The name called nanban-jin(（南蛮人） had been used only a short terms (about50years) in Japanese history.
At 1543, Portuguese brought the gun to Japan this was the first experience for Japanese to know the
Weatern peoples. and 1549 Francisco Xavier came to Japan to propagate the Christianity he was Spanish.
Those Portuguese and Spanish were called nanban-jin (Barbarian who come from South)in Japan at the time.
.'cause there were eating meal grabbing. directly by hand .
It was thought to be the same level as the monkey to eat without using chopsticks.
However, they were not able to come to Japan after 1587 when the propagation of the Christianity
was prohibited by the goverment.
Dutch who had come to Japan a little delaying and only alowed to stay in Nagasaki were not called a nanban-jin,
but Koumou-jin（紅毛人＝red haired people）. However, this name also used: up to the end of 18th century..
After thet till Meiji Revolution,the Western people who came to Japan were calld
Ijin（異人= shortening type of 異国人Foreign country person）.
Therefore, the word "Nanban-jin（南蛮人）". already have been the dead word more than 400 years ago.
If there is a histrical disrespectful name？ which still follows for Westen people ,it might be a"Ketou (毛唐）".
Perhaps, young Japanese dosen't know this word anymore.
Direct meaning of Ketou(毛唐) is Hairy Chinese .
Ke(毛） is hair. Tou（唐）is old name of the China.

Of course, this opinion of one Japanese guy is not sourced. But neither is whereever Danny is getting his info from! Please, let's expand on this with a fruitful discussion, not insults and revert wars. Ashibaka (tock) 01:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The article as it stood was correct, removing the contents was vandalism. --DannyWilde 02:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to correct myself here; the word "yabanjin" is more commonly used, rather than "nanbanjin". I don't have a source for that either, but I'll try to dig something up. --DannyWilde 02:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I couldn't find the website mentioned via Google. If you will refer me to it, I will take up the discussion with the above person myself. --DannyWilde 02:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Here: http://4-ch.net/nihongo/kareha.pl/1129400889/

Sorry about the laced anger in my previous edits. You should try to make a distinction between good-faith contributions and vandalism. Ashibaka (tock) 02:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Danny, this is obviously not vandalism. It's an honest difference of opinion. Please check wiki policy on that. Also, it is entirely appropriate for Ashibaka to ask for a reference. Even if you know you're right, if someone challenges something you wrote, it is your responsibility to demonstrate that you're right. After all, this is an encyclopedia, and unsupported claims to not belong here. I've had contributions challenged by ignorant people that took a lot of time to document, and yes, that was annoying - but why should anyone talk my word for anything, as if it were a blog? kwami 02:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The edits in question did not come across to me as being a request for verification. --DannyWilde 03:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The first edit was because I believed that sentence was added as a joke by some silly Japanese person, and the two further edits were mainly because I was pissed at you for calling me a vandal. Ashibaka (tock) 03:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You may be correct; the "nanbanjin" may be wrong, anyway; I'm sure the term "yabanjin" is still used, but I can't directly confirm "nanbanjin" at the moment, mostly due to a lack of time. About vandalism, I don't consider it the worst thing on Wikipedia; as I stated somewhere on my user pages, bad edits are much more irritating. The total amount of time I've had to spend on Wikipedia removing vandalism is actually very small, even though I edit several vandal-magnet pages, and removing vandalism here is much easier than in real life. Usually I just have to revert, and recently I've also been trying to leave messages on the talk pages of the vandal, but even so the edits take only a little of my time. Compare this to the mistaken edits on Japanese unit, where User:Rhialto removed some quite obviously correct information. I had to go and check and find references for it until I could put it back. Also, have a look at the edits on Rice recently; that dispute is going to take up a lot of my time, so much that I don't even want to get started on it today, even though I have references on hand and could easily prove my case in a few minutes if I could talk to the relevant editor in person. Another accuracy dispute I was involved in was on kagami mochi, where a user repeatedly changed the page without any real references or verification except a bunch of dodgy web pages. Relatively speaking, compared to the rice edits, the Japanese unit discussion, or the kagami mochi discussion, "vandal" is a fairly likeable category, since vandals rarely use up much of my time, and rarely do they start arguments about their vandalism. Just my opinion. --DannyWilde 06:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I second Ashibaka's call for verification. I do not believe nanbanjin or yabanjin are in common usage in Japan, definitely not as a substitute for gai(koku)jin. Kōjien indicates that nanbanjin has not been in common usage since the Edo period, and I see nothing to indicate a connection between yabanjin and gaikokujin. A brief scan of the Wikipedia Japan article on yabanjin makes no mention of Japan or foreigners in Japan and the page on gaikokujin and gaikokujin in Japan makes no use of the word yaban or yabanjin. CES 03:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Edits to Intro

I made a few significant edits to the introduction, so I wanted to explain my changes. First, I wanted to emphasize that the article is primarily on gaikokujin rather than gaijin, something that was not all that clear. I think we could still use a section that is specifically about the differences in nuance between gaikokujin and gaijin as the words are clearly different but related. I can't help but think that this article would be extremely confusing to someone not familiar with the particular situation in Japan.

The other thing I did was add the second meaning of gaikokujin, which is "non-Japanese". This definition can be found in most Japanese dictionaries (I looked in Kōjien and Daijirin) and kwami hints at it above. It makes sense if you think about it, from the perspective of a Japanese person in Japan, a gaikokujin is both a foreigner and a non-Japanese by definition.

It should also be remembered that the Japanese themselves are gaikokujin when the meaning is taken to mean "foreigner" and the context is outside of Japan. For example, a Japanese person living in Australia is a gaikokujin.

There was also a bit of bias that seemed to consider only white and Asian foreigners worthy of mention regarding gaijin--there are of course many other kinds of gai(koku)jin. Again, it might be useful to explain the differences in usage between the generally formal uses of gaikokujin (which tends to be broader) versus the usually informal uses of gaijin (often narrower in scope). CES 03:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Political Correctness

I made significant edit for this section. Feel flee to collect My Engrish. Yoji Hajime

Oh, and have a go at Political correctness section. I will wait until I get more clarification on your source. Yoji Hajime

Guwaijin/Guwaikokujin=

Thanks for discovering that gaikokujin came before naikokujin. However, as far as I can see from this very short and not so detailed reference, it appears to show that the word gwaikokujin also exist. And it hard to see from this reference that whether the assertion that gajin was a historically separate word belong to this professor or someone who is eager to prove that gaijin means "outsider". I should also add that Japanese word kuni (country) refer to a country and a state as well as an estate (implying hometown). I will also transfer your link here from the main page. This link is probably too weak to stay in the front page. http://www.debito.org/kume5tvasahibroadcast.html#origins Please give me any reference in Japanese. Or at least the name of this professor in Japanese so I can do my own google.

I went to Doshishya University website. I looked for Dr Tamamura in Bungakubu Kokubun ka and Bunka shigaku ka. No Dr Tamamura here. http://letters.doshisha.ac.jp/ppl/tcr/cul/index/index.html Is your reference accurate? Yoji Hajime

Not even with a search. http://www.google.com/u/doshisha?q=Tamamura&ie=x-euc-jp&hl=ja&sa=Google+Search Yoji Hajime

=====

Link To Dr Tamamura Doshisha University

http://com.doshisha.ac.jp/kyoin/detail/kyoin_31.html

Suggest you contact him and ask if he gave the interview that day for TV Asahi. His mail address is listed.

Otherwise, contact the universiity to see if he ever existed in the Literature Department. The TV show was broadcast nearly ten years ago. He might have retired or moved on by now.

The page says that this guy teach "Tourism and Tourism Industry". This guy can't be the one we are looking for. So basically your reference is based on a 10 years old tv show. I can accept that the word gaikokujin and gaijin existed from Meji era or even before. Thanks for pointing this out. But given the wide range of the meaning of "kuni/koku", the assertion that gaijin was historically separate from gaikokujin, at this point, is a strech. Plus, I don't know how gaikokujin and gaijin could exist at the same time and gaijin not being the contraction due to how we talk. Yoji Hajime

=====

Languages evolve. How "we" talk now has little bearing on how "we" talked then. I'm sure you've encountered that difficulty when reading old Japanese--the words and kotobazukai back then were very different, sometimes even illegible to many Japanese of today. So just because "guwaijin" doesn't seem to transpose onto the modern colloquial usage of "gaijin" the way you personally expect, is not adequate proof.

You were provided a source--a time, a place, a name. Doshisha has a record of who taught there, even ten years ago. So does TV Asahi in its TV shows. Check up on it if you want to be considered a responsible editor.

PS:  I don't know who you are representing with the "we", but there are plenty of non-native speakers of Japanese who are part of the "we", thank you.  Stop being so provincial.  Words are words without ownership, and unless you are a qualified etymologist, I suggest you stop relying on your own personal gut feelings and check the sources provided.

Your reference isn't a proper reference. It is a hearsay (webpage) of a hearsay (10 years old tv) of a hearsay (the guy who either teach tourism or might not even exist). There is nothing politically incorrect when "we" refer to native speaker. And native speaker is more than qualified to give insight about Japanese in "English" webpage. Non Japanese can do the same if they attain the same proficiency. My understanding of English is far from perfect and I don't opinion about English grammer in opposition to native speaker. It is you who is "provincial" and I should point out that name calling is discourage in this site so stop it. Plus, you should register and sign your name after your comment. Lack of registration alone could qualify for full revert. Limit your argument on Japanese grammer and if you can't, you don't have much to contribute. Yoji Hajime

As of Japanese grammer, yes, I did find it difficult to read classical Japanese when I was forced to learn it in both junior and senior high school. Linguistic wise, new words pop up and old words dies frequently. On the other hand, grammer is resistant to change and pronounciation system is the least likly to change in language. When I said "how we (native speaker) talk" I was refering to the use of contraction, which is not only a gramatical habit but also related to japanese pronounciation system which make such shortening easy and sometimes desirable. This is a fundamental feature of Japanese, classical or otherwise. And because of the frequent use of shortening (such as Pokemon=PocketMonster) the meaning of contracted words can only be infered in term of the original long version. In japanese koku/kuni refer to estate (hometown) as well. So guwaikokujin and guwaijin has an identical reference. In such case, the one is a contraction of the other pretty much by definition. If you want to prove your theory, you have to discover (yet unknown) guwai-????-jin which is unrelated to guwaikokujin then subsequently show that guwaijin is the short of former but not the later. You haven't done so. Lastly, do you call all the previous argument a "gut-feeling". \/(^_^) Yoji Hajime

PS. The assertion of independent gaijin origin will be deleted until this nameless poster introduce more credible reference. Yoji Hajime

Sad. It's people like the editor who are undermining the credibility of the Wikipedia. You are interjecting an enormous amount of your own personal opinion into the entry (for example, making the debate seem like just a bunch of whining Westerners--plenty of other races who live in Japan do not like the word gaijin either), yet are not willing to check offered sources. And your full revert has simply reinjected your own biases. Wikipedia is not allowed to have new and original research, yet you are not even using old research, plus you are going one step further--by interpreting the debate and entering it only as you see fit. Again, sad. I will not engage in one of those Wiki wars. Not worth my time to debate any further given the obduracy of the editor to check the information and go beyond his personal take on the issue.

I checked your "offered" source which turn out to be a lemon. I done my part. You do yours. NPOV means that "Nazi says Jew is evil" isn't same as "Jew is Evil" edit. "Some Japanese say it is all about a bunch of whining Westerners" isn't a biased edit. Generalised description of widely held view (both pro/anti gaijin) isn't original research. Also many reference abound about Japanese tourist in foreign airport calling other people "gaijin". I don't have to source it on particuar incident. When I say "kuni refers to hometown", I don't have to source it to a Japanese linguistic textbook. Lastly, calling that someone is biased is a form of name calling which I asked you to stop. Accusation of bias should be directed to particular edit not to the author of edit. It is a tell tale sign that the accuser himself is the one who is biased. \/(^_^) Yoji Hajime

Let change the title of this article to Gaijin instead of Gaikokujin

Only reason the word "foreigner" warrant an article in English Wikipedia is "gaijin" controversy. The PC section already dwarf the section which deal with "gaikokujin". Let switch the title. Yoji Hajime

I agree. Sekicho 19:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This entry is full of the editor's biases, and is undermining the credibility of Wikipedia

Despite frequent edits and some discussion, the editor decided of a full revert to an older version. I think it important that we talk about how the article is laced with the editor's biases. I excerpt from reverted version dated January 4, 2006, highlighting the problematic text.

REVERTED TEXT: Gaijin (外人 lit: "outside person") is a separate but related word. It is an abbreviation of gaikokujin.

PROBLEM: This is not the case. Gaikokujin is not simply an abbreviation of gaijin, and the only evidence the editor has offered is his own personal (actually, he used "we", speaking as a representative of Japanese society merely by dint of the fact that he is a native speaker) interpretation of the word. This is unaccredited.

As witnessed in earlier discussions available on this site, there is contrary evidence (broadcast on TV Asahi) from an accredited university professor citing historical hard copy. A name, place, date of said broadcast was provided. The professor seems to have moved on, but the editor has not apparently checked whether there ever was a professor there (being vacation time, I doubt he has been able to contact the school), or with the TV network concerning the content of that broadcast. He simply dismissed it as hearsay coming from an unnamed source (myself) without further research on his part. This is irresponsible.

For the record, that link again: http://www.debito.org/kume5tvasahibroadcast.html#origins

History

REVERTED TEXT: Starting in the Meiji era, the term gaikokujin was used to refer to Japanese residents from outside the Empire of Japan, while the term naikokujin (内国人 lit: "Inside country person") was used to refer to nationals of other territories of the Empire. The naikokujin term fell out of use after World War II, but gaikokujin remained the official government term for non-Japanese people in Japan.

PROBLEM: All references to the historical root of gaijin, word "guwaijin", which once referred to Japanese as well if not from one's locality, have been removed. How can any respectable historical treatment ignore that historical word?

Political correctness

PROBLEM: Why does this "Political Correctness" section even exist? Because the editor and other contributors want to bring to light, as we shall see in tone below, that complaints about this word are essentially the deeds of illiterate, oversensitive Westerners. This is an angle, a bias. More below.

REVERTED TEXT: Gaijin, an abbreviation of gaikokujin,

PROBLEM: Again, editor's assertion. Need source. And disputation of counter evidence provided above.

REVERTED TEXT: Additionally, because Japan is almost entirely ethnically homogenous,

PROBLEM: This is an assertion, an opinion, not a statement of fact. Given international marriages and their children, ethnic minorities such as Ainu and Ryukyuans, and other minorities within Japan both now and historically, even Tokyo Governor Ishihara Shintarou has said in repeated press conferences (for example, December 22, 2005, http://www.mxtv.co.jp/tochiji/index.html minute 11) that he doesn't believe Japan is ethnically homogeneous.

I made the edit to this section of "is believed to be ethnically homogeneous", which is possible to assert, but that was deleted by the editors.

REVERTED TEXT: Chinese, Koreans and South Americans of Japanese descent make up the majority of foreign nationals in Japan, and the largest group of Westerners, Americans, comprise only 2.3% (47,836) of the foreign population.

PROBLEM: This figure does not include Americans on US bases in Japan, which doubles the number. Do your research.

REVERTED TEXT: Though small in number, Westerners are disproportionately visible and vocal in the Japanese media. This may be due in part to the obsessive Japanese concern with their country's international image, and the somewhat mistaken belief that its domestic media image and its international image are synonymous. The idea of political correctness is pervasive in the West, particularly in Anglo-Saxon culture, and Westerners are most likely to be offended by the nuanced usage of gaikokujin/gaijin.

PROBLEM: Not only Westerners find this word offensive. Other races in Japan do too. The tone is of cultural imperialism, of Western-style political correctness forced upon Japanese society. This is an opinion, not a fact.

As is "obsessive Japanese concern..." Need source that it is "obsessive".

REVERTED TEXT: To make matters worse, both sides of the debate often fail to articulate their arguments. Most Westerners are neither fluent in spoken Japanese nor functionally literate in written Japanese, and are thus unable to effectively communicate their concerns.

PROBLEM: Need a source that most Westerners are not fluent in spoken or written Japanese. This is an opinion. I edited this section to "Many Westerners...", but it was reverted. I think the editor should get out and talk to more longer-term Westerners in Japan.

REVERTED TEXT: Some parallels can be drawn between the word gaijin and the English word Asian. In a strictly grammatical and geographical sense, Asian refers to people from the Asian continent, which includes the Orient, the Indian Subcontinent, Persia and the Middle East. In usage, it refers exclusively to Orientals in American English and Indian/Pakistani/Bangladesh in British English, which implies a lack of knowledge on the part of Westerners about the diversity of the region. Moreover, geologically speaking, Europe and Asia are not separate continents. Therefore, regarding Europe as a separate continent while grouping everything else into Asia can be regarded as Eurocentric. One may have a politically as well as scientifically correct argument that to describe Europe as a separate continent is implicitly racist. Following this train of thought leads to the concept that the term Asia is passively racist and quite redundant because it refers to no geographical or culturally coherent area. People from Asia would be more accurately referred to by an appropriate culturally/racially/geographically coherent term such as Persian, Oriental or Arab. In American English, however, the word Oriental is now considered somewhat politically incorrect. Additionally, to be more accurate and politically correct, East Asian (Oriental) and South Asian (Indian) may be used. However, most English speakers do not use the word Asian with pejorative intent. Indeed, English speakers would be puzzled and possibly annoyed if someone suggested that the word Asian should be eliminated from the English language, as some believe that gaijin should be eliminated from Japanese. In daily conversation, unless someone is exceptionally conscious of political correctness, no one would use the phrases East Asian or South Asian in the same way that the Japanese use gaikokujin because such usage would be cumbersome and unnatural.

PROBLEM: This entire essay is essentially a long, winding digression, and it does little to develop the controversy of the use of the word "gaijin" within Japan. It instead tries to find hypocrisy within those pesky Westerners. This is a bias.

REVERTED TEXT: Still, because Japan is almost entirely ethnically homogenous

PROBLEM: Need source. I can provide a counter-source: Book by John Lie, MULTIETHNIC JAPAN (Harvard Belknap). Do some research.

REVERTED TEXT: Others counter by pointing out that, in most languages, the words foreigner or foreign likewise imply something strange or alien, but to insist upon the removal of, for example, the word foreigner from English would be considered moronic.

PROBLEM: "Moronic"? Need a source. And a less hyperbolic writer.

REVERTED TEXT: One American was reportedly irritated by a comment overheard in an American Airport-- "Wa, gaijin bakkari!" ("Wow, foreigners (non-Asians) everywhere!") His reply was "Chotto matte. Kokode gaijinnano wa anatane!"

PROBLEM: This is an anecdote. It does not belong in an encyclopedic entry. And who wrote this unnatural Japanese?

REVERTED TEXT: ("Wait a minute; you are the foreigners here!") Others argue that the word gaijin is somewhat abrupt. They counter that, in English and other European languages, the shortening of nationality or ethnicity is often considered abrupt and pejorative (as in the usage of Jap to refer to Japanese people.) In Japanese, this type of abbreviation is not considered offensive, so this assertion would not apply.

PROBLEM: Are you saying that Japanese would not find the word "Jap" offensive? This is incorrect. Anyway, this is an opinion, not a fact.

REVERTED TEXT: Among those Japanese who have lived abroad, their view is influenced by how they view the entire idea of political correctness. From the Liberal viewpoint, correction of insensitive language encourages, promotes and helps establish certain social outcomes and relationships which are beneficial to society. From the Conservative or Libertarian viewpoint, the outcome is entirely superficial, and only serves to divert attention from substantial debate. Most agree that there is nothing wrong when a word is used to refer to a matter of fact, even in the case of race. Some Japanese phrase this as "Gaijin wo gaijin to yonde nani ga warui?" ("What's wrong with calling foreigner a foreigner?") In the case of some Westerners, an acceptance of non-Japanese identity is proclaimed to assert such identity in a positive manner-- "Ore wa gaijin daze!" ("I am a gaijin!")

Another notable twist in this linguistic debate is the resurrection of an archaic word by Japanese who believe that the gaijin issue is absurd and the result of privileged white Westerners whining about trivialities. A kind of word-play pun, the word gaijin reversed sounds like jingai (lit: "Humanity outside", a classical Japanese expression which refers to a monster or beast.) Jingai works both as an insult and mockery to those who claim that gaijin is pejorative; now they have a word that is meant to be offensive to complain about.

PROBLEM: All of this is an essay, expressing an opinion about the debate. And it makes it seem as if "privileged white Weternerers whining about trivialities" about the use of the word has caused a backlash. Need source that any of these claims exist.

FINALLY, LOST LINK:

I added a link to an essay making the case that Gaijin is a racist word. You do not in any way address this in the above entry, and my addition was deleted. I don't know how any discussion of the word could leave out that some people even find it racist, as a naturalized Japanese who happened to be caucasian could still be labelled a gaijin.

I enclose the link here and will replace it on the front page. http://www.debito.org/kumegaijinissue.html If the editor should choose to delete it again, I consider it proof of further bias--suppression of argument (plenty of which is made above about the oversensitive of Westerners) that it may in fact be a racist word. It certainly can be seen as an epithet.

I think we need some etymologists here, not just native speakers with an agenda. It's entries like this which undermine the credibility of the Wikipedia.

61.27.54.213

Please register whoever you are and please go through the tutorial which clarify the editorial policy of Wikipedia. Your use of wiki edit tools and somewhat excessive fragmentation of this section are making this discussion unnecessarly difficult to follow for others. Aside from your unregistered status, the fact that you are calling me "the editor" and your lack of understanding of the meaning of NPOV and "original" research indicates that you are quite new to this site. For example, I did not write the section which says "Gaijin (外人 lit: "outside person") is a separate but related word. It is an abbreviation of gaikokujin." You are attributing all the edits (which appear to offend you) to me. I am not "the" editor" as you seems to think. Most of my insertion of generalised description of opinion is placed in counter to the previos edit of similar nature by someone else. I also make some effort to insert the opposing opinion if it is absent. Plus, your somewhat frequent name calling, making reference to myself as "provincial", "biased", "obduracy of the editor" all indicate that you are unaware of many etiquette of this site. I can give answer to all of the above objections. Your objection regarding American population is a genuine contribution. However, some objection is due to your failiure to learn about Wikipedia. At least, please register and make some effort to learn about Wikipedia. Until then I will not answear every one of your objections. This page is not Wikipedia 101. Lastly, it appear that you cannot read Japanese especially kanji. Had it been the case, you would not have brought up Dr Tamamura, the professor of Tourism. It appear that you used search engine in English only. Your reference of gaijin and Jap as two equivelant words also indicate that your understanding of Japanese is somewhat elementary. As of your beloved weblink, if you bothered to use Japanese-English dictionary or their online version in internet, it all translate gaijin (and gaikokujin) as foreinger. The reason someone (not "the editor") wrote "gaijin, an abbreviation of gaikokujin" without citation is that he or she expect anyone who contribute to this page to have access to such dictionary. He is not required to be an etymologist or linguist to do so. Here is a list of links of online dictionary. Please make use of it. And for a time being, please do not make edit on the basis of your unsubstantiated claim. Yoji Hajime

REPLY: My apologies for the poor use of wiki edit tools and excessive fragmentation &c &c.. Yes, I am new to the wiki system, as you say. Again, sorry.

But your assumption that I cannot read, write or speak Japanese is incorrect. Your evidence, the citation of Dr Tamamura, I provided not because I couldn't read anything else, but because the site had his email address to make it easier for you to contact him. And how else could I have understood the Ishihara press conference of Dec 22 I cited above if I can't understand Japanese?

And regardless of what the online dictionaries say, we are talking about the historical root of the word, not its present usage. We need a historian's opinion here, not a dilletante's. Again, check the source I provided. You have constantly refused to do so, and then used that not only to justify reverting the document back and removing all subsequent debate not only about the origin of gaijin, but also the current debate which frames gaijin as a racist word.

Instead of trying to pass me off as one of those illiterate foreigners that the biased entry on the gaijin debate tries to castigate, why don't you take responsibility for your edits? You reverted the document back. The content is therefore your responsibility. Don't evade it. You mess with the contents, you are open for criticism for doing so.

I wrote detailed long respose to your argument which I realised was stupid. Fine fine, you are fluent in japanese and can read kanji. I'm happy for you. You got full revert because the edit was based on reference which is not credible. I will delete any edit on your part if it is based on that Dr Tamamura. If you are unhappy with my unilateral action, please feel free to take the complain to the highest authority of this site. Thanks to our "forum flaming", this page will be archived. Another "etiquett" you are not aware is that this place shouldn't be used like an internet forum. I won't be back this page for a while so thing can be cooled. So long. Yoji Hajime

Ok, let's cool down a bit here. Yoji, cut newbies some slack ... I know that it took me a while to get used to the rules and etiquette of Wikipedia, so let's encourage new voices. 61, don't feel that you have to register (although it would be nice to call you something besides 61), but please do sign your posts on the talk page. It makes an argument easier to follow.

I think you both have good points here, let's see if we can work out a compromise to improve the article. Some thoughts:

With the addition of the political correctness section, I agree that this article should be at gaijin
I will state up front that I do not know the etymological differences between gaijin and gaikokujin. That being said, I'm highly skeptical if the only support for the argument that gaijin and gaikokujin have separate origins is from an old TV show. Without more support, I think we should call gaijin a contraction of gaikokujin. If more support can be found, let's mention both views ... the point of the article is not really about the etymology is it?
The PC section is rambling and not very well structured ... I'm not really sure that we need the paragraph comparing gaijin to Asian (if the article is written well enough, the reader should be able to make his/her own comparison), the airport example, the Liberal/Conservative perspective, or the point on jingai. It would be nice to clearly state the argument for why gaijin is not PC, then the counter-argument for why gaijin is PC and keep it short and sweet. CES 13:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)