Jump to content

Talk:Racism in Japan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 30 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Anna204 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Vrba223, Ashleystump, JQHazey, Willa39.

— Assignment last updated by Dslaym (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More statistics are needed on discrimination to back this up

[edit]

I can't deny that ethnic issues are indeed a problem with Japan, but I seems that compared with previous versions of this page over the years that this article paints a one dimensional view of the matter without properly explaining through statistics on the extent of the problem. I do think that times have been worse as even Debito made an article that things have been getting better. However the way this page is edited seems to come off that the ethnic issue has gotten worse. For example while there are alot of businesses that to have signs showing refusal of service to foreigners there's no statics on the extent of this and the only citation is a list of signs off Debitos website which isn't a complete list. I can't deny that racism is a problem, but this article could use a rewrite in the discrimination section. Like South Korea which also has ethnic issues towards foreigners, the treatment in these two countries has become more open. https://shingetsunewsagency.com/2024/01/23/visible-minorities-positive-steps-for-non-japanese/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undeadmerc3 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 14 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ninajack021.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophobia in younger demographics

[edit]

for some reason in japan, schools and other organizations have a rather, to put it bluntly idiotic amount of racism this includes actual gangbeating. intimidation, and most importantly they tend to follow you all over the place, just waiting, it's real paranoia fuel and i would like this to be put in (Undeadplatypus (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

yes there seems to be a systemic indoctrination of the younger generation in racist ideologies. I think this is important information which needs to be included in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.10.111.130 (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

requesting change to the few opening paragraphs

[edit]

The first opening paragraphs sound like they exaggerate the racial issues in Japan by using the term "often." I know that there are some serious issues in Japan, but by saying "often" it sound like it's claiming that most Japanese people are like this. For this reason I would like to discuss the right to remove it in time or at least replace it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 20:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be much more helpful if you proposed here something you thought was better. CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 23:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Get real. Japan has NEVER dealt with this issue. Nor has it dealt honestly with the war crimes it committed during World War II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like this one, or this] one better? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disingenuous title

[edit]

According to WP:COMMONAME, shouldn't this article be titled Racism in Japan instead of Ethnic issues in Japan? Google Books finds 2,010 ghits for "racism in Japan" and 94 for "ethnic issues in Japan". Wikipedia contains dozens of "racism in" titles like Racism in Argentina, Racism in Asia (including Japan and 17 other countries), Racism in Australia, etc.—but only two other "ethnic issues in" of Ethnic issues in China (originally Racism in the People's Republic of China) and Ethnic issues in the Philippines. Keahapana (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human = Race, Mongoloid = Cline, Chinese/Korean/Japanese = Ethnicity. If bigots are making their decisions based on nationality/ethnicity, it would NOT be accurate to call it racism. 204.12.94.172 (talk) 20:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Wook[reply]

In social psychology, "Race" and "Ethnicity", are separate but overlapping stable latent psychological constructs. "ethnicity" and "ethnic identity" are more useful than "race" and "racial identity" used to describe acculturation and aspects of personal identity at the majority group (host culture) and sub-group(s)(minority group(s)) level relative to the geopolitical region. Therefor this Wikipedia article is one example of scholarly research related to ethnicity, acculturation, and sociocultural sub-groups in a particular geopolitical region being Japan. Dr.khatmando (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore the title is appropriate Dr.khatmando (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No this feels like a whitewash to me and it does not reflect the article. Xanikk999 (talk)

Post-war xenophobia in Japan

[edit]

As a foreign resident of Japan, I feel that there needs to be a new section entitled "post-war xenophobia in Japan". If we are deeply honest with ourselves, Japan is simply not a modern nation when it comes to how foreigners are treated. No laws against racial discrimination exist. There are public protests against Koreans and Chinese, the schools teach select views of history and there are many places foreigners simply aren't allowed to go.

What would we call this in America or Europe? The answer isn't flattering in my opinion. I'm sort of wondering why any edits regarding the racism and xenophobia in modern Japan are almost instantly deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.114.238.214 (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, I'd find something to cite. If someone reverts something that's cited and well-sourced, they can be reported as per WP:NPOV. I'll look for a few sources. ミーラー強斗武 (talk) 20:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Long belief"

[edit]

First paragraph, "Culture in Japan has a long belief of xenophobia and jingoism towards foreign cultures." What is a "long belief"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.249.237 (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should be: "a long history of belief". Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 01:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This part is in itself jingoistic...

[edit]

Culture in Japan has a long belief of xenophobia and jingoism towards foreign cultures.[citation needed]

Not only is this highly offensive and racist (as it lumps every Japanese individual into the same group), it is also not something that can be put in an encyclopedia as it is merely someone's opinion, not factual, and not cited. Therefore, I have removed it. ChemicalG (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this part: "Japan is facing cultural conflicts between ethnic minorities (including immigrants)[citation needed] and the resident Yamato Japanese.) "

Is not backed up by fact, and also merely expresses the opinion of someone. It's too general to be included, therefore I have removed this too.

NPOV issue...

[edit]

" Another issue of racism in Japan is the idea of ethnic purity as 98.5% of Japan is the Yamato ethnic group. [1] "

References

  1. ^ CIA World Factbook Retrieved on 11 June 2012.

How is this an "issue of racism"?

I've therefore changed it to be more inline with NPOV policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemicalG (talk • contribs) 06:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ChemicalG: It's an issue because the Japanese census doesn't take ethnicity into account, only nationality. It may be true that 98.5% of people living in Japan are Japanese citizens, but the Ryukyuan people, Ainu people, Chinese people, and Korean people certainly are not Yamato people. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Sturmgewehr88,

Thanks for your response. In that case, we should not phrase it as: "Another issue of racism in Japan is the idea of ethnic purity as 98.5% of Japan is the Yamato ethnic group.", because this is an unfairly loaded statement, and violates NPOV. The cited reference merely goes to the CIA's "factbook" page, there is nothing here that proves "racism", and therefore this word should be removed. If you want to mention the issues with the census, then you should create a properly cited, fact based NPOV section. ChemicalG (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ChemicalG: Well at least you reworded that sentence more appropriately. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 02:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmgewehr88 - no worries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemicalG (talk • contribs) 03:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so here's my two cents:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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".
  4. 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%).
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, it's not really a good idea to remove the sentence, given what's written before it. But I'm actually not sure about what's written before it -- where in the Washington Post article does that claim appear? Or is it in the embedded YouTube video? (I watched the video about a year ago; not too interested in revisiting it.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much better wording than I came up with about this. Do you know of any sources about this? I think I have one but I'll have to go dig it up later, and it probably only deals with Ryukyuans. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Sturmgewehr88: This isn't my area of expertise, but I found this method is usually pretty effective. My phone's running out of battery and it's not good at checking PDFs to begin with, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Ethnic issues in Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ethnic issues in Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Title is not NPOV

[edit]

The title is a whitewash for what actually is racism and ethnic discrimination. I think it should be reworded to Racism in Japan to go along the lines of other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanikk999 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ethnic issues in Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

article needs attention from an expert

[edit]

im afraid that this article is in urgent need of attention from an expert, really. it has multiple issues which cannot be dealt easily. Фквжьись (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Фквжьись: issues such as..? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 23:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please be more specific or they cannot be "dealt easily", as you say. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see some rigorous discussion about this article. You can see my response in regards to the title of the article here [[1]]

I also note the concerns and issues raised in other discussions. I can assist with improving the article at the end of this month. (I have a book chapter project for T&F to finish first). Dr.khatmando (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Dr.khatmando (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Ethnic issues in Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ethnic issues in Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Miyamoto

[edit]

in the links section, the comment to the Wiki article on Miyamoto currently says 'controversial Miss Universe' - exactly why is she deemed to be controversial? I went over to the linked article and still don't really get it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.82.187 (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ethnic issues in Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ainu people

[edit]

What's the point of having a section for Ainu people without mentioning any ethnic issues? --Kaledomo (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the Ainu section to include their general history, but it still needs major additions. I did highlight the suppression of their culture and their recent recognition in 2008 by the Japanese government. — Coastaline (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 March 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jack Frost (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Ethnic issues in Japan → Racism in Japan – This is one of only three Wikipedia articles in existence that uses the form "ethnic issues in Foo" instead of common "racism in Foo". We don't even have a redirect for ethnic issues, nor a Category:Ethnic issues (although there is the unique Category:Ethnic issues in Japan - the only ethnic issues category on Wikipedia...). This is just an outlier in the Category:Racism by country. "Ethnic issues" is just a weaseling synonym for racism ("this country doesn't have racism problems, unlike rest of the world, we just have, errrr, some ethnic issues. Move on, nothing serious to see here."). See the wider context at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Discrimination#"Ethnic_issues_in"_vs_"Racism_in"_problem. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've moved the page to Race and ethnicity in Japan to avoid WP:ASTONISHing readers wondering why racism isn't mentioned anywhere in the lead, only being substantively treated in one of the last sections. See also: All pages with titles beginning with Race and ethnicity. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article may need rewriting, and some content may not be relevant here. But the main topic should racism. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with the lead?

[edit]

Why does the lead look like it was written for a completely different article? The lead does not encapsulate what the article says, and indeed does not mention racism in Japan today at all, although the article does so in detail. The lead should be rewritten in accordance with MOS:LEAD. (I am not very confident about doing it myself, because I am not very knowledgeable about this and editing this article needs more sensitivity than cursorily glancing at sources. However it is very obvious that the lead does not mention even a third of the things it should.) W. Tell DCCXLVI t | c 12:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, WP:BEBOLD and try your hand at it. You are right it's hard to make it worse... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for better citation

[edit]

On the section of "Access to housing and other services", some editor use soranews24 and a twitter post(which I already removed) to cite the incidet about Japanese establishments refuse to serve foreigners. I tend to believe it's actually happen and true. However, maybe I am being uninformed, I dont think soranews24 is really a reliable news source as I barely find anyway about them and there website give me a vibe of old blog site in the 2000s....Therefore I request for better citation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone97816 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New article needs expert eyes: Japanese privilege

[edit]

Please take a look at Japanese privilege to see whether it can be improved at all, or whether it should be merged into this article. Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet I'd recommend a WP:AFD to get more comments. The term is used in a few works but it not very common, and my quick BEFORE is not giving a good case for why this should be a stand-alone article, plus WP:TNT comes to fore, since the article uses this term just in the lead (uncited defininition) and then meanders about various racism- and discrimination- related issues; heck, most of the article is about 'outside Japan' topics; the section on South Africa is totally irrelevant, and then most of the article is about... Korea? Korean privilige? This is indeed very bad. Please AFD this and ping me if you'd be so kind so I can copy my rationale over there. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you understand. You can add your thoughts here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese privilege. Thanks in advance, Piotrus. Binksternet (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent controversial edits

[edit]

A recent contributor to this article has added a number of highly controversial claims (see [2]), including that ethnic Koreans were killed "for theft and robbery" [3] during the Kanto Massacre, and changing the existing claim about the Korean language being banned during the Japanese occupation of Korea by adding "not," so that the sentence now reads: "During Japanese rule in Korea, ... the Korean language was labeled a Japanese dialect (方言) and not banned," [4] while citing unreliable sources like News Postseven. I hope there will be an effort to review these revisions and revert them if appropriate. Kaze757 (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention. The wording has now become more accurate regarding the suspicions and accusations against Koreans in the chaos following the Great Kanto Earthquake. As for Korean language education during the era of Japanese rule, I believe the fact is simple and clear. It is inaccurate and irresponsible to simplistically describe the cessation of Korean language course in the education system in the last four years (war-time) of 35-year rule as "banned". Artificialrights (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR It's not really up to you to describe what is accurate or inaccurate on controversial matters. The only thing that matters is what scholars are saying. Your responses to these concerns are worrying and illustrate that you don't understand how editing Wikipedia works. You are not supposed to advocate your positions, you are supposed to reflect what scholars are saying in a detatched manner. seefooddiet (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually do the read you will find that scholars also acknowledge that Korean is not banned, not just my personal opinion. End of question. Artificialrights (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the fact is simple and clear your personal opinion.
If you actually do the read you will find that scholars also acknowledge that Korean is not banned I have done the reading and know the situation isn't straightforward. Present a more rigorous analysis of what the sources are saying, make sure the analysis reflects the international consensus, and don't use unreliable sources. When you edit on contentious topics, the burden to do it right is high. seefooddiet (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can the process of modern states developing and promoting standard languages ​​be seen as forced assimilation?

[edit]

Especially among a group of languages ​​that are unintelligible but very close.

For example, can the "forced" learning of standard Japanese in schools for Kyushuans who cannot understand Tokyo language be regarded as Japan's evil policy of forced assimilation?

Should bilingual education in Korea (prior to the outbreak of World War II) also be regarded as Japan's evil assimilation policy?

Does the implementation of a uniform language education and assimilation policy imply that the central Government is racially discriminating against the local population? Artificialrights (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to us to decide what is forced assimilation or not using our own analysis. Analyzing things yourself is WP:OR. On Wikipedia, we rely directly on what the majority of international scholars are saying. seefooddiet (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On whether Koreans deserved to be killed during the Kanto Massacre

[edit]

Addressing recent edits and edit comments by User:artificialrights. Considering the event itself is widely called the Kanto Massacre (and this is the article title), I don't really think using the term "massacred" is controversial. I think hedging for the Koreans who may have committed crimes is WP:UNDUE. While we should avoid implying that every Korean was innocent, it would be inappropriate to hedge and potentially imply that any deserved to have been killed. If we do imply the latter, we should do so with heavy and precise caveats.

On whether violence was premediated, that's not really controversial. It was largely mob violence, yes, but the mob violence was in part approved by and conducted by the state. That's premediated; it'd be like if the US encouraged lynchings and also conducted its own. People would almost certainly and rightfully blame the US and consider the violence premediated. So yes, both premediated and opportunistic.

All of the above opinions I've given reflect the international consensus. I'm on mobile rn but can provide sources upon request seefooddiet (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one's suggesting "Koreans deserve to be killed." In the eyes of most normal people who haven't absurd existing prejudices, "being killed" does not constitute any "glorification", nor does it imply "killing is justified".
Except that in perspective of NPOV principle, "killed" is the objective and the most natural word with zero-controversy, which you also used by yourself in the title, while the word "massacred" presents a strong emotional connotation, as well as its users' subjective interpretation of characteristics of the event. Moreover, this word appears twice in the same sentence, revealing the editor's strong intention to convey a certain point of view. When you have a strong preexisting tendency, someone else's mere statement of facts without strong emotion may be seen by you as a biased (that deviates from your own point of view).
Samely, "rumors" itself means unfounded claims, which already suggested the killing was unjustified. However, the absolute assertion of "completely false" overlooking the nuances of the situation. A more accurate and nuanced statement would acknowledge the largely false nature of the rumors while still acknowledging the possibility of some isolated incidents that were then inflated. To present the complex historical event accurately you'd better to avoid making overly definitive and assertive statements that might be challenged. So yes, the addition of "false" in front of the "rumors" is unnecessary and overemphasized. Artificialrights (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • [5] At a quick glance, adding "for theft and robbery" reads like an attempt to justify why the killings happened, although I can see how it's more ambiguous. I take back the strong statement about trying to justify the massacre, but I still am skeptical of your writing.
  • For "massacred" MOS:LABEL allows for the use of subjective language if it is the widespread practice; hence why "Kantō Massacre" is that article's title. Whether the word needs to be used multiple times is more a matter of style. On the other hand, you comfortably used "slaughtered" on this edit. Not sure of how consistent you are on neutral language.
  • But you still need to be careful about WP:DUE weight. We should avoid absolute statements, but I think making clear to the readers that the vast majority of rumors were probably false is justified. Give rewording it a shot and I'll evaluate the net effect.
seefooddiet (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem I see here is that many of User:artificialrights's edits, while admittedly in a very subtle way, tend in the exact same direction, which is toward defending the prewar Japanese state from criticism and exonerating it from accusations of malfeasance. This means that where, for example, an article says Mark Ramseyer "argues" something, the user changes that to read "wrote" or "stated," subtly implying acceptance, but when a opponent of Ramseyer's says something, the user changes it to "argues." The user will make the exact opposite edit depending on which side of the argument it favors, which is clearly tendentious editing, all the while claiming to make articles more NPOV. In the case of this specific article, adding the word "chaotic" and changing massacred to "killed" has the deliberate and intended effect of implying that the killings may have been in some way unplanned or inadvertent, which is not only an uncited implication not based on any source, but also flies in the face of all serious scholarship on this event both inside Japan and outside of Japan, which has uncovered extensive evidence of police and other state actors coordinating the spread of rumors and encouraging violence against specific groups (or even carrying it out themselves). In fact, the only scholar of note who has made an attempt to argue that the killings were in some way totally spontaneous (and also that Koreans deserved to be killed) is the aforementioned J. Mark Ramseyer, and even he had to remove those portions of his chapter after a scholarly peer review. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify that here at Wikipedia we do not automatically seek to side with critics of the Japanese state, and I myself have toned down needless and unjustifiably inflammatory language on many occasions, but we need to be careful to accurately represent what the scholarly consensus says, and not reduce clarity by introducing exoneratory weasel words in the name of NPOV. Sometimes a massacre actually is a massacre. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking something similar. 20th century history is often plainly unflattering to all parties involved, but Artificialright's edits all lean towards being gentler towards Japan. But at the same time, they're more comfortable writing criticism of other countries when Japan suffered in some situation. This has been fueling my skepticism. seefooddiet (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because current Wikipedia is rife with biases and trends to the contrary. Japan is highly demonised as an "evil empire" as of its defeat in WWII. It is an impression manipulation in some way from the first place. I've been watching Wikipedia for a while now. The addition of any content and biased expressions that make Japan look worse and seem completely irrational evil is hardly ever challenged and does not need to be cited. Instead, information about Japanese victims is downplayed or even deleted. This is shameful. I'm against moral double standards. Artificialrights (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're against moral double standards, so you oppose the use of "massacre" against Korean victims of Japan but advocate for "slaughter" against Japanese victims of China? I'm really unconvinced you're as unbiased as you think. Writing in a way that's biased in the other direction isn't helpful. seefooddiet (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did I modify the wording of "massacred"? "slaughtered" is precisely a test and verification of the moral double standard I mentioned above. As I said earlier, both of them are emotional charged language compared to "killed", yet you (and some other users) downplayed massacre incidents involving the Japanese victims. I've been observing Wikipedia for a while (before this account was created). Multiple occurrences of this type of editing shown in multiple pages and times makes me highly doubt your perceived neutrality as a whole. Artificialrights (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is yet again an issue where you don't understand how Wikipedia works... Did you read MOS:LABEL? It explains why "massacre" might be ok for the Kanto Massacre but not "slaughter" for that other article.
It all comes down to what is being said in reliable sources, and you didn't provide sources for "slaughtered" being the common wording in RS. seefooddiet (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a quibbling sophistry. Slaughter is simply slaughter; the term reflects the brutal methods used, this incident are widely described as '虐杀' (slaughter, brutal killing or atrocity) in Japan. The fact that this event is rarely discussed in post-war academic and popular media outside Japan highlights the systemic inequality in discourse. Artificialrights (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Civility issue, yet again. Do not dismiss my explanation of Wikipedia policy as "quibbling sophistry". This is just how Wikipedia works. If you provide reliable sources for that inline then "slaughter" can go in. Overall, my point about you advocating for "slaughter" and not "massacre" still stands. Bias that you have owned up to. seefooddiet (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your point doesn't stand because I only suggested that "kill" is the more neutral and natural term than "massacre", especially considering that the loaded term has been used multiple times in the same sentence, while I didn't advocate against the use of the term "massacre" altogether. Artificialrights (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree. Maintain civility; I suspect we'll continue to have these conversations going forward. seefooddiet (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"for example, an article says Mark Ramseyer "argues" something, the user changes that to read "wrote" or "stated""
The real issue is the version before my revision just showed an obvious double standard. When Ramseyer said something, it was always "argue", and when his opponents said something, it was all more affirmative "state" or "write". Obviously, the previous version (that is, the current version) has a clear language bias, which is clearly result of tendentious editing. My minor changes were just to balance the wording. Either all "argue", or all "state" or "write".
"implying that the killings may have been in some way unplanned or inadvertent"
It is. And it doesn't contradicts the state actors' responsibility.
Btw, "in some way" and "totally", these two words in the same sentence are self contradictory. Artificialrights (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is. This is what is worrying me; this is an absolute statement about the killings. Can you see why others may read mixed signals from you, paired with your self-admitted sympathy to Japan [6]?
To clear up confusion, to what extent do you believe the killings were unplanned or inadvertent? Like if you had to give it a %. What worries me is I think you're leaning towards emphasizing Korean crimes. I know you've hedged several times, but given your admitted leaning I'm now even more skeptical of your writing. seefooddiet (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"it is" referring to "in some way". Is that am absolute statement??
The opposite statement should be 'completely nonexistent,' which is an absolute claim. I don’t want to waste more effort explaining. It’s your responsibility to read and understand the context fully
"I think you're leaning towards emphasizing Korean crimes."
This is completely absurd interpretation. Artificialrights (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please watch the tone. We discussed this in WP:ANI already, if this continues we'll go back there. I stand by my skepticism of your writing. seefooddiet (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Racism_in_Japan&oldid=1265702482"