Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanocentrism

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 was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanocentrism

Japanocentrism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Original research. Works cited in the reference section are mostly on generic Japanese hitory and/or Japanese nationalism and none of them studies such a concept as "Japanocentrism." There are already articles on Japanese nationalism and Japanese fascism. --Saintjust 02:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It is a neologism/protologism, and as constituted might violate WP:SOAP. I also agree that the intended topic is covered through the established topics and articles Japanese nationalism and Nihonjinron. On the other hand, Bhumiya finds lots of holes in our coverage of topics, so I'd like to hear about why he created the article. It's remained mostly unchanged since he introduced it in 2005. Dekimasuよ! 05:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• The title is not a protologism. I've found quite a few occurrences of it in books, such as ISBN 0415297907, which covers various aspects of Japanocentrism on pages 91, 123–124, and 193–195, for example. That, and the various scholarly papers on the subject, such as this, convince me that there is a proper documented concept here, that is linked in the literature to other concepts such as Mingei and sakoku. (ISBN 0521003628 discusses the Japanocentrism of the idea that the History of Japan has "an open/closed rhythm", in that it ignores the existence of similar phenomena in Korea and in China, on page 9, for example.) Whilst the article content strays from what is actually supported by the literature that I can find, that is a problem that can be solved by ordinary editors doing ordinary editing, with the aforementioned sources (and others) in hand. Administrator intervention is not required. Keep. Uncle G 08:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Japanese Modernisation and Mingei Theory that you possibly found in google book search only describes the multicultural aspect of Japan's Oriental Orientalism (the very subject of the book) being "Janpanocentric" because while Oriental Orientalism embraces cultural diversity within the Orient it also assumes that the core culture of the Orient is Japanese. "Janpanocentric" here is just an expression the author used (like many other xxxx-centrism) and is not a fullfledged concept on its own, and naturally has got nothing to do with the content of this Wikipedia article. --Saintjust 09:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • False. It has quite a lot to do with the content of this article. For example: What the book says about Japanocentrism on page 91 covers much the same territory as is covered in the article's "Early forms" section. That you think that it's "just an expression that the author used" is belied by what the author xyrself thinks, which is clearly implied by xyr inclusion of Japanocentrism as a subject in the book's index. Uncle G 10:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There are about 150 Google hits; perhaps I shouldn't have called it a protologism, though I'm still not convinced it isn't a neologism. The 2005 IJAS paper that you cite does use the term, but based on the abstract, the topic appears to be nihonjinron and its historiography. I'm still unconvinced that the article is on an independent topic. I did leave a note for Bhumiya, by the way. Dekimasuよ! 09:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Counting Google hits is not research. As for the paper, the topic really is Japanocentrism, as demonstrated both by its title and the (second) paper that it introduces, which discusses the adaptation of Sinocentrism into Japanocentrism. Uncle G 10:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Looking at the constitution of the individual Google hits failed to convince me that this is a separate topic. The fact that there are few hits is one that we can consider in judging whether the term is a neologism, even if that evidence is not all-encompassing. Dekimasuよ! 01:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep, but I recognize that pages of this sort are somewhat subjective and difficult to assess, and while I can assure you that none of what I wrote is original research, much of it is scantly if not uniquely documented. I created this expecting that it would be heavily modified and probably provoke lots of argument, which is a good thing. My chief intention, in creating such a provisional page, was to separate the phenomenon of Japanese ethnic chauvinism from the discipline of Nihonjinron, which I would consider a different matter - related, but unambiguously different, just as, say Democracy in America is different from American exceptionalism. If we were to merge the contents of this page with Nihonjinron, I think it would simply reflect our negative response to Nihonjinron. And I suspect that if we delete this page, it will eventually have to be recreated, since it is undeniable that Japanocentrism exists, and that it is a more general concept than Nihonjinron. Bhumiya (said/done) 14:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the contents of this page were intended to be provisional. My main intention was simply to create an article for Japanocentrism that was separate from Nihonjinron. I am not a Japanese scholar, and was even less of one in 2005, so just about everything on the page is derivative from the sources, which seem sound. My main concern in this discussion is not to preserve my contributions to this page, but to preserve the essential distinction between Japanocentrism and Nihonjinron. Bhumiya (said/done) 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and Salt Violates WP:SOAP;Topic already covered in Japanee nationalism and other related articles. mcr616 _Speak! 17:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I wasn't aware that that article was so extensive. I would support such a merge. Bhumiya (said/done) 20:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or Redirect to Japanese Nationalism Problem arise from the problem is that every nations, no matter how big or small, want themselves to be the center of the world; it's just how they did and the end results from that that actually matters. However, those are already more or less covered in Japanese nationalism. George Leung 01:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Origional reserach--Sefringle 04:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I've checked the number used with google. It seems a jargon used mainly in a few boards. Poo-T 04:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Counting Google hits is not research. Research involves reading what Google turns up. It also involves reading cited sources, such as the books and scholarly journal articles that discuss this subject that are mentioned above. Uncle G 12:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's an unsubstantial term. Tropicaljet 07:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the popularity of the term "Japanocentrism" is irrelevant, this phenomenon definitely exists and should be documented. --Candy-Panda 13:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If it isn't an original research, please cite some examples of it. Tropicaljet 14:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we've already noted other articles in which this phenomenon is documented. The creator also has said he supports a merge to Japanese nationalism. Dekimasuよ! 10:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete original research.Watermint 09:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is a original research. --Azukimonaka 14:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or possibly Merge with "Nihonjinron" or whatever approriate article. This article seems very redundant, although I too would be interested in what Bhumiya has to say about it. Mackan 16:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to appropriate article (Japanese nationalism maybe?). Mackan 16:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Japanese nationalism, on balance. I'm not a Japanese scholar but I support Dekimasu's assessment. For what it's worth, I don't consider this personal research, but considering the scope of our Japanese nationalism article, this page can only be seen as redundant. Bhumiya (said/done) 17:48, 20 April 2007 (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.