Talk:Gaijin

message: This article takes a long time coming to the point that the word has no definitions which can directly be taken as negative or pejorative. But instead the "political correct" activists have assigned connotations to the word which actually belong to the strong attitudes which is applied, often along with specific longer phrasings. That is, its not the phrasing alone and especially not the individual words that are negative. 
Instead negativity comes from the attitude in vocal tone and body language which adds emphasis and subtext to the words said. Surely there is a term that describes this in a word or two. 
Also a word or two that describes the prejudicial reflex that begins assuming the specific attitude based on any similarity of wording. Hopefully also words that also point out the futility of "political correct" policy that outlaws certain otherwise neutral words or combination...given that the negative attitude remains and can adopt new words rather easily.65.26.139.168 (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not our job.  See WP:OR. Jpatokal (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special term? 

message: One reliable source cited in the lead sentence mentions that the word "gaijin" could be "slightly derogatory." However, the sentence reads "Some commentators feel that the word is negative or derogatory in connotation, and thus offensive." I removed "derogatory" because that's not what the reliable sources actually said. Someone put it back without explanation.  I'm wondering if can put either "slightly derogatory" in quotation marks or simply remove it entirely because that's not what the reliable sources say. J Readings (talk) 12:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Slightly later on in the article, there are three cites given for "...it is seen as derogatory by some".  One of which is the "slightly derogatory" one, but unfortunately Google Books isn't letting me see the other two... Jpatokal (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Lead

message: The word 外人 hasn't been used to mean "outsider" since at least the Edo Era (200+ years ago) (which is how far back I can read in Japanese), and if I'm not mistaken, since the Nara/Kamakura Eras, or thereabouts, when it was more commonly pronounced ほかびと. When used today, that meaning is not even in the back of peoples' heads.  As such, I feel it is incorrect to say that the word means "outsider".
I rephrased it as '(literally and originally meaning "outside person") is a Japanese word for "foreigner," "non-Japanese", "alien".', which I feel is the most accurate way of describing it.  Unfortunately, most Japanese dictionaries just list both the modern and archaic usage without listing the archaic usage as archaic.
If someone would wish to re-insert "outsider" as a listed meaning of the word, then I would suggest also citing something that explicitly states that the meaning of "outsider" is not just archaic, or a usage of the word in the past 200 years.  Unfortunately, it is impossible to cite every single piece of Japanese media in the past 200 years as proof of it not having such a meaning in modern usage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.112.115.99 (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Outsider" 

message: Does anyone have any objections to these two sentences being deleted from the article for apparent WP:OR concerns?
"[Gaijin] is a recurring word in The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006), where it is used to refer to both the main character, an American, and his love interest. The author Ben Mezrich uses the word "gaijin" frequently in his book, Ugly Americans to refer to the society of Americans making their living from the Japanese stock market."
I realize that book and movie titles with the word "Gaijin" are mentioned in the previous paragraph, but if we're going to start listing every book or movie that mentions the word "gaijin" in the text or screenplay, eventually the article will become unreadable.  I'm surprised those two sentences have lasted in the article this long. Can we remove them? Oddexit (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree—it's fluff, uncited, and definitely WP:OR. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oddexit (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research: listing every publication and screenplay that mentions the word "gaijin"? 

message: I was just reading about Nanette Gottlieb when  deleted the sentence completely and asked who she was (I guess rhetorically). It seems that Nanette Gottlieb (and I never heard of her) is a member of the Australian Academy of the Humanities and a Sociologist of Language. Her PhD seems to be in Japanese Language and language policy. 
Here is her biography from that page :
Professor Nanette Gottlieb FAHA 
Qualifications: BA(Hons)(Queensland), PhD(Queensland)
Year Elected to the Academy: 2006 
Discipline: Asian Studies
Expertise: Sociology of language in Japan
Nanette Gottlieb is Professor of Japanese Studies in the School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies at the University of Queensland and has taught Japanese language and Japanese Studies courses at both Griffith University and the University of Queensland. She has published widely on the sociology of language in Japan, with a particular interest in language policy. Her administrative responsibilities have included a five year term as head of the School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies. From 2007 to 2011 she holds an Australian Professorial Fellowship to work on the project Immigration, technology and literacy: key challenges for language policy in a changing Japan.
I'm not a Sociologist of Language, so I defer to others about what her credentials mean for this article. What I think we can say safely, though, is that she's not a garden variety pundit writing deliberately controversial columns in a newspaper or a non-fictional author publishing for a general audience without the rigors of peer-review in specialist journals. She's a specialist in the field. Does it mean she gets her own sentence? Not necessarily. I added her name because someone requested the source be identified in the lead. Of all the sources we should be using for this article, a Sociologist of Language publishing in peer-reviewed sources is probably a safer bet than some of the others on the list, but she doesn't necessarily get more weight than other language scholars. I was looking over the sources and most of the ones used in this article are tertiary encyclopedic sources with one or two exceptions. Oddexit (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, so you did! I read your subject summary and noticed that it was deleted from the lead. Sorry about that. Yeah, I don't know if she deserves her own sentence or not but citing her is probably a safer bet for this type of article. Oddexit (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't doubt it, but the lead should give an birdseye view of the subject—she would have to be quite the towering figure on the subject to deserve mention in the lead. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: True. You make a good point. Thanks for the edit. Oddexit (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just now commented out her address. That minor matter aside, she seems eminently citable, but I agree with both of you that citability in the lead is a different matter. -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nanette Gottlieb 

message: The Portuguese in the 16th century were the first Europeans to visit Japan; they were called nanbanjin ("southern barbarians"). When British and Dutch adventurers such as William Adams arrived in the early 17th century, they were usually known as kōmōjin ("red-haired people"), a term cognate to one used in modern Hokkien Chinese.
When the Tokugawa shogunate was made to open Japan to foreign contact after two centuries of self-isolation, Westerners were commonly called as ijin ("different people"), a shortened form of ikokujin ("different country person") or ihōjin ("different motherland people"), terms earlier used for those from different feudal states within Japan.
''
Several sentences (above) have been uncited for years. Reading most of the original source material on gaijin, these words are not even mentioned. For POV and OR reasons, I'm not sure if they even belong in this article. But for the time being, I thought we could put these sentences on the talk page until someone can offer some useful source material linking their relevance to this article. Oddexit (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the other terms, but I've done some work on the Sadahide article recently, and the term "ikokujiin" shows up in a number fo sources to do with Yokohama-e.  for instance, this, and a lot of the prints have "ikoku" or "ikokujin" in their titles: here's a search for "横浜絵　異国". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  南蛮人、紅毛人、 異国人 、異邦人 

message: Would anyone mind if I edited the article and removed the repetitions? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaikokujin mentioned 4 times 

message: Please, can someone link the Swedish Wikipedia page about the word Gaijin to the other pages? Here's the l
Link TheWikipedian1250 (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to another Wiki page 

message: What's up with the accent on gaikokujin (gaikokújin)? Chininazu12 (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accent on gaikokujin 

message: References 2 to 6 either lead to personal links or dead links. They need to be removed 24.17.90.178 (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 2 to 6 either lead to personal links or dead links. They need to be removed 

message: I keep seeing that directly underneath the banner Gaijin. Can't seem to find where it's coming from in the code. 38.101.95.193 (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaijin: consumption of feces shirt descriotion