::Okay, so here's my two cents: 
 :# This not an NPOV issue, but a sourcing issue. If it were an NPOV issue, then no matter what the source said, our wording itself would have been the problem. 
 :# The original wording was an explicit abuse of the source, since the claim was about discrimination but the cited source made no reference whatsoever to discrimination. 
 :# The cited source also was not about ethnic issues; the CIA World Factbook has a set format listing "ethnic groups", but in Japan's case (where the census doesn't collect data on ethnic/racial background) subs nationality in instead. Proof of this can be seen in their citing "Chinese" as an ethnic group on the Japan page, but on the China page actual ethnicities are listed. They even went out of their way to cite what ethnic data they could  that a large proportion of the Brazilian population were ethnic Japanese. That's also why the source didn't refer to "Yamato Japanese". 
 :# The source cited is actually not the CIA World Factbook but a mirror site that claims its information to be "accurate as of August 23, 2014", but it's pretty obvious that this doesn't mean it is "accurate to the real world as of August 23, 2014" but rather that it is an "accurate representation of the CIA World Factbook as of August 23, 2014". This is problematic when the Factbook itself is not necessarily up-to-date (the only date given in the cited statistics is 2004, and I think it's safe to assume that, for example, a more up-to-date figure for the contraceptive prevalence rate can be found than the 2005 figure of 54.3%). 
 :# For this reason and the above point (3) that for unavoidable formatting reasons the Factbook gives misleading information about the ethnic situation in Japan, I don't think the Factbook should be cited in this article. 
 :# The current wording is still problematic, since, even though it does not directly make the same unsourced claim, the citing (without specific explanation) of census data on nationality in an article on ethnic issues is misleading and problematic. 
 :#The sentence as originally worded made a(n unsubstantiated) claim that non-Japanese face discrimination and used percentages to back this up; deleting the claim about discrimination but keeping the percentages is pointless. Remove the sentence entirely, and reinsert it if someone can find a valid source making the original connection between the relative ethnic homogeneity of Japan and discrimination. 
 :: ()