Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese intestines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Japanese intestines

Unsalvageable POV, bizarre nonsense not supported by serious enquiry. JFW | T@lk 18:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:NPOV. [1] Kappa 19:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Could you clarify this vote, Kappa? Do you disagree that when all the dross is removed, all there is left is some chauvinist offhand remark from a politician? JFW | T@lk 23:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't believe it was offhand, anyway it sparked a controversy. "Chauvinist" is POV. Per WP:NPOV since there is significant and verfiable support for the (bizarre) idea that Japanese intestines are different, we are obliged to reflect that opinion. Kappa 00:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • So this should ideally be merged into an article, for example Nihonjinron - see below. JFW | T@lk 17:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; of the four links provided by the page, only the first one is about Japanese intestines, and is actually about what Hata said in 1987 (the second and the third are about the intestine in general and the fourth one is in Japanese). As far as I can see, this article can be seen as:
    • a news story about a remark made by a Japanese minister of agriculture in 1987; or
    • a piece of original research about that remark.
Either way, this is not an article for an encyclopedia. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete per Paolo. Dottore So 22:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Famous example of Japanese exceptionalism. Was there once an article with that title? I can't locate it now. Fg2 07:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • There's Nihonjinron, that might be what you mean. Kappa 08:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Although I've heard Japanese intestines (three feet longer than the Western intestine) cited as an example of Nihonjin-ron, that article doesn't seem to be the one I remember. Thanks, though. I think the information belongs in Wikipedia somewhere, and it seems more widespread than the minister cited in the article. The question is, where does it belong. Perhaps Nihonjinron? Fg2 10:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Keep This is an interesting piece of material which should be developed and perhaps finally placed in the Nihonjinron page, which should then be better linked to related pages. Ideas like this are widespread in Japan and they have major social implications. The key about the Japanese hypothesis one is that it can be tested and therefore refuted. Because including it here will allow contributors finesse it over time, it should be included from the npov from where it now sits. (previous unsigned comment by 222.229.230.79 -- Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 14:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC))
Vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
      • A line in the “Nihonjinron as pseudoscience” section of Nihonjinron should be sufficent to cover this idea. An article is not needed. I also remark that the two facts used to disprove the claim of Japanese diversity (short time for evolution and same diet of other people) do not in fact disprove the claim. They only disprove that the difference is due to evolution and not, for example, to genetic drift. As for the social implications of ideas such as this one, they should be discussed in the Nihonjinron article: I do not see how intestine lenght and pronunciation of r and l differ from this point of view. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 14:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per JFW and Paolo. Alex.tan 14:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

*Keep, but with proviso that it is better written to provide NPOV, and link provided to and from Nihonjinron page. However people may search wiki for Japanese intestines to see what the fuss is about and that should provide the answer. 15:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC) (previous unsigned vote by 202.228.229.71 -- Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 15:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC))

Vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment while the question of the Japanese intestine may be of some interest in the context of Japanese culture, it is is irrelevant to the context of intestine. Please stop adding the link from that page to this one. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 15:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Any Japanese person would expect to be able to find out if their intestines are different or not by searching from that page. Kappa 16:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
        • You can achieve this with a redirect from Japanese intestines to Nihonjinron. A short paragraph there should suffice for this, I don't think it deserves a whole article to itself. Alex.tan 17:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • A search for "Japanese" and "intestine" will take to Nihonjinron, in the same way this search currently gives intestine as a result (because of the link that points here). I think that the redirect is not necessary. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep Interesting storm this. I feel the issue of Japanese intestines is important as a testable and refutable element of Nihonjinron. The same goes for the importance of blood as a social signifier in modern Japan; this ideas was originally mooted in Nazi Germany and is one of the remaining legacies of the Axis alliance. While I do not think this topic should unduly impinge into the medial explanation of intestines, it is important to hold the ideology of Nihonjinron up to a more public mirror. And Wikipedia is perfect for that. The consensus seems to be that the article should stay but should be more appropriately housed. The size of the final article would be largely determined by the information provided by contributors familiar with the debate and who could, in accordance with Wikipedia's policy, enlighten the rest of us and. mpre importantly perhaps, chauvinistic Japanese who believe in unscientific fables like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.229.236.136 (talk • contribs)
Vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Genetic Drift There is also debate in Japan about the earliest foind specimens of pottery in the Jomon era; several researchers tried to maintain that Japanese pottery preceded Chinese and that the Japanese were therefore superior; the Nazis had an interest in archaelogy for much the same dark reasons. Genetic drift would take a much longer time to manifest itself and it is not clear why it would manifest itself with the Japanese and not the Indians. This important point could also be included in a revamped entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.229.236.136 (talk • contribs)
Vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be deleted, but added as a sub-page to nihonjinron. Anyway, this scientific study that I found through Google scholar has a possible explanation for the myth.http://www.springerlink.com/(mlmsb445aiduhp55ykroozuw)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,1,13;journal,20,57;linkingpublicationresults,1:100430,1 Abstract

Background and aims. Colonic diverticula are located predominantly on the right-side in patients in Japan, in contrast to those in Europe and the United States. This study compared the etiology of right-sided diverticula in Japan with that of left-sided diverticula in the West.

Methods. A literature review was conducted from 1950 to 2001 using Medline and Index Medicus.

Results. Diverticula occur predominantly in the right-sided colon (over 70%) in Japanese patients, and even among Japanese who emigrate, in contrast with the diverticula in Western. Incidence (detection) rates of colon diverticula have rapidly increased in Japan since World War II with the increased dietary fiber intake. The increased detection rate over time is higher in urban areas than in rural areas, and it corresponds to the distribution of dietary fiber intake. Birth cohort analysis suggests that right-sided diverticula is affected more by environmental factors than other types. Furthermore, the significant relationship of right-sided diverticula with intraluminal pressure in Japan is similar to that of left-sided diverticula in the West, and the pathological feature of these diverticula are similar.

Conclusion. The etiology of right-sided diverticula in Japan (and perhaps also other Mongolian peoples) is very similar to that of left-sided diverticula in the West. The location may represent a difference in morphology of the large intestine between Mongolians (including Japanese), and Westerners, rather than environmental differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutantfrog (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per JFW and Paolo Liberatore; the article is pointless alarmism masquerading as widespread political opinion. Had the researcher provided several verifiable sources to support the assertion that many agree with the minister of agriculture, there may have been just cause to produce this "rebuttal-like" entry as a footnote to the Nihonjinron entry in a NPOV tone. 219.5.144.3 (talk · contribs) 17:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I wanted to note here that the belief is widespread in Japan. All one need do is to do a search on a Japanese search engine. When I type in the phrase "nihonjin no chou" (Japanese intestines) and "nagasa" (length) at Yahoo! Japan, I get 143,000 hits. If nothing else, this belief deserves at least being mentioned under nihonjinron. --Matt Dioguardi (first edit by Matt Dioguardi (talk · contribs) -- Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 11:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC))
    • Comment with due respect to the previous discussant, citing Yahoo! Japan and other Japanese search engines as "verifiable sources" to the assertion that many agree with the minister of agriculture, is weak and suspect, and should not be used as a litmus test for encyclopedia entries. By entering the same keyword searches for "American," "British" or "Western" intestinal length one gets 276,000 hits, 121,000 hits, and 161,000 hits, respectively. Do these relatively high number of hits suddenly tell us that Americans, British, or Westerns generally believe their intestines to be longer? Of course not. In fact, these numbers tell us nothing at all except that the keywords appear somewhere on the pages in question. A more convincing (and verifiable) source would be a formal nationwide survey, or poll, or series of public statements by elected officials or columnists that explicitly agree with the assertion. Anything else is baseless supposition. Delete per JFW and Paolo Liberatore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.5.144.3 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 5 November 2005
  • keep I typed in "British intestin" and " Western intestin" and got no hits on yahoo search. This indicates, as has been pointed out, that the difference is a POV in Japan but not the West. The point about the claim, which most of us suspect has no factual basis, is it is statistically testable. It is, like the idea of blood being a significant signifier, widely adhered to in Japan. Comprehensive encyclopedias must cover modern myths as well as more ancient ones and show us where they can lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.229.233.242 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 5 November 2005
Vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment The gentleman has misspelled intestine which perhaps explains his conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.5.144.3 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 5 November 2005
      • Comment on Comment: The gentleman, who may be a lady for all we know, did not misspell intestine but instead typed in intestin to catch some other words such as intestinal. The gentleman also made no conclusions but instead pointed out how ideas like these are linked to other (politically inspired) myths. Please note the marks around the searched for items in the posts above. This is to get them in the desired sequence, standard search progress both in English and in Japanese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.229.233.242 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 5 November 2005
  • Comment; I have reverted the last edit in which an anon (an unlogged user) changed all unsigned signatures with {{Mambo}}. If the intended meaning was to communicate the creation of a new account, I suggest to add a sentence like “this anon is now using the account User:Mambo” at the end of each comment, instead. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment to Keep: This article raises a number of interesting hypotheses, none of which have been significantly/scientifically proved or disproved anywhere and some of which can lead to nasty conclusions in line with the Nihonjonron/Nazi thesis/theses. There is an eminently testable hypothesis here: that there is a significant difference in length between the intestines of one "people" and those of (all) others. The idea that the intestines of the Japanese are different is used to prop up the idea, widely held in Japan, that the Japanese are different and somehow superior and special. As part of this process, the idea's apologists come up with figures comparing the relative lengths of the intestines of all kinds of animals, in some Japanese version of The Ascen]]t of Man. In targeting this social, "pseudo-fascist" myth, we end up having to address a wide number of issues, including the lengths of intestines of humans and all other animals. Wikipedia is the perfect place to pool our common, if limited knowledge together in a positive way and not to get bogged down in pedantry or cheap irrelevant shots/deletions. (anonymous aka Mambo)
Vote disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:20, 6 November 2005 (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.