Template talk:Japanese ethnicity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Japanese ethnicity page.
Archives: 1
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Template This is a template and is not rated on the assessment scale.
Japan To-do:
Archive 1

Contents

[edit] About "Image:Japanese people of all ages.jpg"

I see that because the picture was taken by yourself, so you are eager to use it here desperately, and it makes you to have an unusual sense. Your argument: "using 6 pictures crammed together in a sloppy conglomeration" is not a logical answer for my question. It is just your sense. Also "The picture being used currently is representative of modern Japanese people, which is what most people are going to want to see when viewing an article about Japanese people" is also based on your guess. My question is why the current picture is better than my alternative??? There are 3 reasons why I LOGICALLY believe my alternative is better than yours: first, it is used by the majority of the same kind of templates (It can be considered as The Standard Format). The second is we can flexibly select various types of people from wikimedia commons (ex: historical, famous, ordinary, traditional, young, old, male and female.) Finally, the current picture can be used in other parts of this article, since it's only one image. Therefore if I use my argument, the current is that, firstly, it is unusual format, secondly, there is only one family, and finally, it can be used alternatively like titling "Japanese ordinary family" and putting it on other section. Although I can understand that you want to use the picture that you took, I would like you to remove your egoism and think logically. Your choice is completely weird for other editors, I guess --- isida1028 20:44 (UTC) December 2nd 2007.

This has nothing to do with my ego. If you look at the section just above this one, I added that picture to Wikimedia Commons as a replacement for the previous picture. It was added specifically for use here. As for the sloppy conglomeration of six pictures being standard, just because that format is used in other templates does not mean it has to be used here or that it's suddenly "The Standard Format". The only age groups not represented here are the elderly and babies. The people in the picture range in age from 7 to 45, so it's a pretty good depiction of Japanese at various ages, both male and female (divided equally in the picture, as it turns out). I'd like to see some other opinions, though, as neither you nor I speak for other editors (despite your comment that my "choice is completely weird for other editors"). The image has been used there for over six months, and no one made any comments about until now. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen the old pictures, so I'm not making a statement as to which is better. However, my problem with the current picture is that, while it does have a somewhat diverse age range, it only represents one family, thus limiting the variety within a single ethnicity. Furthermore, though I realize that nikkei are spread throughout the world, elderly people are a huge (and growing) proportion of the native population in Japan, yet they're not represented in the picture. Douggers 04:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You can see the one which was there before I replaced it with the current picture by looking here. You can see the images Isida1028 wants to use by viewing this dif. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
After looking at the old photos, I oppose the current picture. I really think having six different photos gives a much wider variety of the ethnicity and, therefore, fits the article better. I don't necessarily support paintings being included, but the variety of pictures is more likely to contain other parts of the culture that are strongly related to the Japanese ethnic identity (eg.,　clothing, etc.). Douggers 06:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't force you to use "the standard format(?)" immediately, and I know we don't HAVE TO use. This is just my recommendation that "the standard format(?)" looks better than yours. so we are discussing now. Secondly, because you know them, you don't feel strangeness of the member of the picture, but for others, at least for me, the component is SUPER strange. Are 3 kids adequate?? Is only 1 adult male adequate?? I don't think so. The component is pretty unbalanced. 3 males and 3 females including 1 pretty young person is better. And remember the readers cannot know their age, and editors CANNOT change the component of the picture. If we use 6 people, we can flexibly discuss which picture is proper to use. Finally, you can use it alternatively! Why did you not answer for it?? This picture can be used in other parts of this article. And it's better way. Again I ask you why your picture is better than my alternative? Please answer logically! All of your answers were just refusal of my alternative. What I want to hear from you is advantage of using this picture and its superiority. --- isida1028 11:35 (UTC) December 3rd 2007.


Yeah, the picture of Ayumi with those bug-eyed glasses conveys nothing about the Japanese, for all the reader knows that could be one of Paris Hilton's cohorts. Chris 06:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I actually like the family photo, it is a nice change of pace from the famous guy/other famous guy/famous lady/somebody in black-and-white/somebody else famous format, it is warm, approachable and makes the topic human, especially for younger readers who have not yet had the honor to meet a Japanese family. Until a superior picture comes along, including oba-san as per Douggers' suggestion, I support the use of Nihonjoe's Wikimedia Commons photo. Chris 05:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I support the use of the family photo. I think the photo represents an average image of Japanese people. Oda Mari (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to try getting a picture which includes the two age groups missing, too. It may not be for a few months, though. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the family photo. Any copyright-free photograph of Japanese people from a decently reputable source is better than the current original photo. Who the hell are they in the photo anyway? How do we know if they really are Japanese? Admittedly the application of WP:NOR is more lenient for images, but that doesn't mean that original images are desirable on Wikipedia. Credible photos should always be used over original ones whenever available. Please get rid of it as soon as possible. --Saintjust 06:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

They are Japanese. I took the photo, so I should know. Please try to remain civil instead of attacking my integrity by stating that the people in the photo may not be Japanese. Exactly how is this photo not credible? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The credibility of anonymous Wikipedia editors is practically zero unless they provide reputable sources other than themselves to back up their edits (see Wikipedia:No original research). Unless you are some reputable photographer and you have published the photo on some reputable medium, it's not very credible. That's just a restatement of an important Wikipedia policy, not an uncivil attack on your integrity. --Saintjust 07:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Saintjust-If you were to actually read Wikipedia:No original research, it states
“ Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. ”
Nihonjoe is not some "anonymous Wikipedia editor", he's a longtime editor in good standing and is one of the anchors at WikiProject Japan. He's not alone in reading incivility in your comments. Chris 08:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
That's why I said "Admittedly the application of WP:NOR is more lenient for images, but that doesn't mean that original images are desirable on Wikipedia." Just because images are less likely to violate the "core idea of WP:NOR," that doesn't mean that they are desirable. For credible and verifiable images from reputable sources are always better than original images.
"The core reason behind the NOR policy" here is the prohibition of publishing original ideas on Wikipedia. In the current case, the "original idea" would be that the anonymous family appearing in the photo are really Japanese. That is certainly an absurd idea to push, and worrying about it is silly. But the prohibition of publishing original ideas is only one negative editorial policy of Wikipedia. There is another, positive editorial policy of Wikipedia, which is that every edit to Wikipedia should be well-sourced, or "verifiable," so that the resulting encyclopaedia will be a reliable one. For the latter objective, original image is definitely not desirable. Original images may be better than no image. But they are definitely not better than credible images.
I'm not concerned about the 'truth' of the ethnicity of the family. I'm concerned about the "verifiability" of the photo. If the original photo were of some reputable figures like the president of a country, it would not be such a big problem. But when photo objects are something like "common Japanese people," confirmation isn't as easy. --Saintjust 08:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I support this picture until someone shows me a better alternative, and that has proven difficult already (check Talk:Japanese people and its archive - we have been looking for a long time). I oppose using paintings or photos of people who are famous Japanese citizens, because this is specifically meant to represent the ethnicity, not the nationality, and it is easier to draw that distinction without famous people. We are trying to represent Japanese people (and Japanese immigrants) in this photo, and this shows them well. I understand that you disagree and that consensus can change, but we have already discussed the photo extensively more than once, so this is not just a question of Nihonjoe adding a photo at random. Dekimasuよ! 10:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unverifiable, original image is not desirable

The family photo image currently used in the template is an unverifiable, original image. It is so because it was taken and uploaded by a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor who has no known credentials as a photographer or an anthropologist or anything else than Wikipedia editor, and the photo has not been published on any reputable media. The only information about the photo is that the Wikipedia editor took it, and his claim that it is a "[p]icture of a Japanese family, showing a range of ages." There is no way to confirm that it is really what he claims to be. Such an image is not desirable on Wikipedia, especially when there are better images that are verifiable and free of copyright issues, such as the one provided by isida1028 above.

This family photo image violates the Wikipedia policy WP:V, which maintains that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," where "verifiable" means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has been published by a reliable source such as major news media and academic journals. This policy is to ensure the accuracy of Wikipedia articles by encouraging editors to cite sources. Since the source of the photo image at issue is a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor (who doesn't constitute a "reputable source"), it lacks verifiability. If the photo object were some famous figure like the president of the United States, an original image might not be such a big problem. But when the photo object is something like "common Japanese people," confirmation isn't as easy.

The Wikipedia policy WP:NOR, which prohibits publishing of original ideas on Wikipedia, condones original images on two grounds: (1) that "images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments" (compared to texts); and (2) that "there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use... because of copyright law" (again compared to text sources that are more readily utilized via quotation and citation). The first ground concerns the abuse of Wikipedia to advertise original ideas. Publishing of original ideas is a problem because it is an incentive for some editors to add unverifiable contents to Wikipedia. However, even if someone who adds an unverifiable content to Wikipedia does not intend to advertise any original ideas of his by doing so, the content he is adding itself is still unverifiable, and so it is still not desirable as far as WP:V is concerned. The second ground is condoning original images only for the lack of better images that are verifiable and GFDL/copyright-free. That is, original images are condoned because having some image is better than no image, and images are less likely to be abused regarding WP:NOR and WP:NPOV compared to texts. When verifiable and GFDL/free images are available, they should always be used over original, unverifiable images. --Saintjust 01:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is not specific to the photograph in this template; it's about all photographs by editors of Wikimedia projects. So I suggest that this is the wrong place for the discussion. It should reach a wider community of Wikipedia editors. Please consider starting a general discussion about all illustrations in Wikipedia. We are not prepared to carry on that discussion or to come to conclusions about all such photography in Wikipedia in the talk page of one template. Fg2 02:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about general policy issues here. What WP:V and WP:NOR say is very clear to me, and I don't see there is anything to discuss about them. I'm only questioning the appropriateness of the photo image in the light of these two policies. --Saintjust 02:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much all of the images uploaded on Commons are "taken and uploaded by...pseudonymous Wikipedia editor[s] who [have] no known credentials as a photographer or an anthropologist or anything else than Wikipedia editor". That doesn't make them any less reputable as images. WP:OR does not apply to this image in this case. Please go back and read the policy. I've already told you (and your pal Isida) that the image is of Japanese people. Why would I lie about that? If you look above, someone requested an image to replace the samurai image that was being used before. As I had taken pictures of Japanese people during my time living in Japan, I uploaded one to Commons and replaced it. I find it absurd that you (and Isida) are questioning my integrity by basically saying that I'm lying about the contents of a picture I took myself of people I know personally. Unless there is a very compelling reason to believe the people in the image are not Japanese (i.e., they all had natural blonde hair and blue eyes), then your acusations are baseless and a waste of time. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Ofcourse all the original images taken and uploaded by pseudonymous Wikipedia editors lack verifiability and reputability as much as written original researches, theories and thoughts do. Original researches (texts) are strictly forbidden whereas original images tend to be condoned only because images are less likely to be abused for the purpose of advertising, and the availability of verifiable and copyright-free images is very limited. Whenever verifiable and copyright-free images are available, they should always be used over dubious original images.
Whatever you claim about your original photo doesn't really matter as far as you are a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor with no credentials and you don't provide reputable sources to back up your case. Pseudonymous Wikipedia editors themselves don't constitute a reputable source. You could use the photo on your Wikipedia user page if it has no copyright problem.
If the figures being photographed were somebody notable like George W. Bush, confirmation would be easy, and original photo images of him might not be as big of a problem. But they are just unknown, common Japanese people. There is no way to confirm their ethnicity. There is no reason to use this photo when verifiable and copyright-free images are available. --Saintjust 02:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
By your reasoning, we should trash 95% of the images on Commons. That's just absurd. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
If there are verifiable images that could replace existing original images, they certainly should. Nothing absurd about it. --Saintjust 07:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
That's the problem. As others have pointed out multiple times below, the verifiablity of the photo is not an issue unless you are seriously questioning that the people in the photo are Japanese. If you are seriously claiming that, then you are calling me a liar for stating that they are Japanese. If you are calling me a liar, then you are not assuming good faith on my part, especially given my history here. That's what it all boils down to. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Replacing unverifiable original images with verified images is definitely an improvement of the credibility of Wikipedia, which is almost entirely dependent on credible outside sources. That's a legitimate concern in my opinion. --Saintjust 09:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC - NOR and images

I have requested that others come comment here so that we can get broader input on this discussion. I find it absurd that we are having this discussion given all the previous discussion on the policy itself in less remote locations than this minor template, but I think it's important to get outside input into this discussion. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Per your above comment, this is absurd. A picture is hardly original research, nor is asserting that those it features are of a certain ethnicity when the uploader specifies it. After all, unless they were blatantly not Japanese, it's usually safe to take the editor on their word. To claim that a picture taken by an editor is original research is nonsense. Only what they use it for could be considered original research, and in this case the argument for that is seriously lacking. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to assume good faith on the part of the uploader that the family is in fact Japanese. Besides, things that are immediately evident from observation do not require verifiability. If there's substantial reason to doubt that a picture's description is factual, an alternate source can be found. - Chardish 07:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is that there is no need for unverifiable original images when verifiable and free images are already available. The unverifiability of the original image is certainly not a desirable feature. It doesn't matter if Nihonjoe is not trying to advertise any original ideas by adding the original image to Wikipedia. The fact still remains that the image is unverifiable regardless of his intension. I wouldn't complain about the image if there were no other images that could be used in the template. But there are better, verifiable ones. So there is no need for it any longer.
The issue is not no much about the image itself but the precedence of verifiable images over unverifiable ones. --Saintjust 07:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The image is verified. Discounting vision-impaired readers, anyone can take one glance and draw the near-instant conclusion that those the photograph pictures are of Japanese descent. I for one prefer it much more to a group of men where half the occupants are not even facing the camera. Furthermore, a modern photographic image is inherently more reliable than a hand-colored one. It seems to me you're trying to use a non-applicable policy in an attempt to bypass normal consensus building, when what you should be doing is finding one of the images which you insist exist as a helpful alternative. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
That's not the kind of "verifiability" as prescribed in WP:V. How do you know that they are not Korean or Chinese or any other Asian ethnic by the way? --Saintjust 07:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Because the uploader said they are Japanese, which is all that is needed. WP:V is for articles, not images. If you're going to use the policies, make sure they apply. There is nothing that this image needs to verify. It's a picture of Japanese people which the uploader took. You can see it, I can see it, and any common reader can see it too. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Then you are not drawing your "near-instant conclusion" from just "one glance" but simply accepting whatever the uploader claims it to be. I am a native Japanese and I can't "draw the near-instant conclusion that those the photograph pictures are of Japanese descent" because in many cases Japanese people are indistinguishable from Chinese, Koreans, and other East Asian ethnics.
WP:V is a policy that maintains that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," where "verifiable" means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has been published by a reliable source such as major news media and academic journals. Your "verifiability" is regarding the "truth" of the ethnicity of the family in the photograph. That's not the kind of verifiability that the policy is advocating. --Saintjust 07:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, that does not apply to images. You're trying very hard to make it, but it won't work. The image does not need a reliable source, only a general source. These two kids are assumed to be African American. We do not ask for proof that they are: you can see it. Same thing here. Misuse of policy to suit your position will not work]]. If you want to do something, why not find a better image? Throw up a collage like the infobox picture. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is asking for any proof of their Japanese ethnicity. I am not concerned about the "truth" of their ethnicity, or whether what the caption of the photo claims is true or not. I am concerned about the photo's "verifiability." --Saintjust 08:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Which doesn't apply... there's no point in conversation if you're going to insist on incorrectly applying the policy. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) As others have said, verifiability is not applicable to images. If you think about it, verifiability would mean you need a citation to a reliable neutral source that the specific image in question is what it purports to be, which is almost unheard of except for a certain subclass of non-free images published in reliable sources, which we don't want to use anyway because they are non-free. You just have to count on good faith editing, concerned editors, etc. There are quite a few other places like this - categorization, for example. Just go with it, and if a dispute arises (which is extremely rare), the consensus process is more than enough for the community to agree on which image is the most trustworthy, authentic, encyclopedic, illustrative, etc. It's an editorial decision. The image in use is very sweet and touching but a little odd and informal. There may well be raasons why another image is more appropriate and if you have a real reason to believe they aren't Japanese or don't illustrate Japanese people well, that's a fair argument. But the way to make it is not to insist on a source as we do for an article's text content. Wikidemo 07:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at articles on Japanese war crimes (Nanking Massacre, Comfort Women, etc.) and the host of controversial photographic evidences of them that have caused a long content dispute. (Image:Autopsy of a Japanese victim killed in the Jinan Incident.jpg is a prime example.) There is no way that such photos could be included in the articles without proper citation. --Saintjust 08:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a huge differnce between the photo being discussed here and that photo. First of all, there's nothing controversial about the content of the photo here. It's just a group of people standing there for me to take a picture. The picture you linked to is a horrible reproduction without any useful detail, so of course it's going to be controversial. If you can't make out the details in the picture with any reliability, then it makes it very difficult to determine the veracity fo the claims regarding the photo. In the photo being discussed here (the picture for this template), there is nothing about it which could be interpreted incorrectly if you assume good faith on my part and accept that I'm not lying about the contents of the picture. I've stated multiple times now that the people in the image are known to me to be Japanese (all of them, since birth!). What evidence do you have that can even begin to refute that (again, assuming good faith on my part)? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Replacing unverifiable original images with verified images is definitely an improvement of the credibility of Wikipedia, which is almost entirely dependent on credible outside sources. That's a legitimate concern. More verified contents Wikipedia has, more reliable Wikipedia will be as an encyclopaedia. Besides, it's not like you can write anything you want without providing any sources as far as nobody is contesting your edits. All edits should be well-sourced, whether contested or not. --Saintjust 09:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on his talkpage history, saintjust is arguing just to hear himself argue, and now is claiming to be ethnic Japanese. He'll cast aspersions upon the credibility of Nihonjoe, an established reputable editor, then make spurious claims about his own credibility based on his supposed ethnicity. One could easily say that he as another anonymous editor could make such a claim about himself, and that it would be less verifiable than the photograph in question. At some point this mindless drivel must be stopped. How does one call for closure of this issue? Chris 08:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not concerned about the credibility of Nihonjoe or any other pseudonymous Wikipedia editors. I simply don't want an unverifiable image in the Japanese people template, especially when there are better, verifiable images that could be used instead. --Saintjust 08:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The "information must be backed by sources" quite clearly only applies to material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. If no one is contesting that those people are Japanese then the verifiability of that image is an utter non-issue. - Chardish 08:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, I am arguing for the precedence of verifiable images over unverifiable images. I am not suggesting the deletion of the original image for the lack of verifiability. I am suggesting the replacement of the original image with a better, verified photo in the template.
Replacing unverifiable original images with verified images improves the credibility of Wikipedia. (For Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia whose credibility is almost entirely dependent on credible outside sources.) Every content in Wikipedia should be as well-sourced as possible, whether contested or not. It's not like you can write anything you want without providing sources as far as nobody is contesting your edits. --Saintjust 08:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break 1

This, this, and this are no more verifiable than the image you are talking about. We know who all of them are, we believe they were uploaded in good faith, but we can't prove that it's not a guy who looks like the emperor, a girl dressed up as Ayu, and Beat Takeshi's twin brother. As we work hard to shift from fair use to only free content, your statement dismisses a large percentage of the images on Wikipedia. We've still got Fuku-chan, but only if you allow that the US government is a reliable source (and it's still not an improvement, and doesn't coincide with my request to have the photo display the Japanese ethnicity as an entity distinct from the idea of Japanese nationality). Dekimasuよ! 12:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That Emperor Akihito's photo could be replaced by Image:Emperor Akihito and empress Michiko of japan.jpg from U.S. Navy. Kitano's photo could be replaced by Image:Kitanosonatine.jpg from his movie Sonatine. Hamasaki's photo could be replaced by Image:Jevelpromotionvideo.jpg from her music video. There is nothing wrong with fairuse images as far as they are acceptable on English Wikipedia. --Saintjust 13:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Note that the Sonatine screenshot and the music video screenshot would not be fair use for the purposes of illustrating "Japanese people" here. Both are deprecated for situations not directly relating to the film and the music video in question, per WP:FU#Unacceptable images, numbers 2, 7, and in particular, 12 (replaceable fair use, a rationale under which we have been removing such images in favor of freely-licensed and unverifiable images submitted by Wikipedia editors). Dekimasuよ! 14:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
In either way, it's relatively easy to find verifiable and free/GDFL images of famous figures like them. If you like a film director, there should be a plenty of old photos of Akira Kurosawa. Hamasaki could be replaced by Hibari Misora. --Saintjust 14:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The portrait of Ellison Shoji Onizuka (Japanese-American), Image:Ellison Shoji Onizuka (NASA).jpg, from NASA. --Saintjust 13:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think verifiability of the picture is a main issue. What the most important issue we have to discuss is finding good and bad aspects of these two ways of using the template. I don't deny the current picture itself. What I claimed was the way of use it. ---isida1028 03.28 4 December 2007.

This is very quickly becoming grounds for WP:LAME - Chardish 17:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. I don't see anything wrong with the present image, nor is there reason to suppose that it is OR, unverifable or anything like that. Given that it is a picture of a family intimately known to an editor here, there may be a slight WP:COI issue, but thats not really significant to the world at large.
  2. Since there appears to be an objection that it is too generic, may I suggest something slightly more classical, like (a cleaned version of) Image:ViewsAndCostumesOfJapan.jpg or Image:Officer's daughter.jpg instead?
    If these are unsuitable, then perhaps something better could be found at commons:Category:Japan. Its not as if the group had any dearth of pictures (if anything, the fragmentation at Category:Japan needs to be cleaned up).
-- Fullstop 18:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Arbitrary break 2

The policy that applies here is right there in black and white (well, black and really pale bluish off-white):

Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Also, because of copyright law in a number of countries and its relationship to the work of building a free encyclopedia, there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use. Wikipedia editors' pictures fill a needed role.

A disadvantage of allowing original photographs to be uploaded is the possibility of editors using photo manipulation to distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. If the manipulation materially affects the encyclopedic value of the image, they should be posted to Wikipedia:Images for deletion. Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader.

I'm not sure what's the issue here. If you have a dispute with that policy, the correct place is the policy talk page.—Random832 18:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR condones original images only because having some relatively safe images is better than having no images at all, especially when there are much fewer verifiable images that could be used on Wikipedia compared to text sources. Original images are safer than original texts (which are strictly forbidden by the policy) because images are less likely to be abused for the purpose of advertising original ideas than texts.
However, that doesn't mean that original images are perfectly OK. Many articles on Japanese war crimes, for example, use photographic evidences to substantiate controversial claims, and such photo images have been a cause of some long content disputes. (Image:Autopsy of a Japanese victim killed in the Jinan Incident.jpg is a prime example.) There is no way that dubious, unverifiable, original photo images could be included in such articles without causing troubles.
Moreover, publishing of original ideas is not the only concern of Wikipedia. Publishing of original ideas is considered evil precisely because it serves as an incentive for some editors to add unverifiable materials to Wikipedia, and unverifiable materials are undesirable in their own right, irrespective of whether someone intends to advertise some original ideas by adding them to Wikipedia. For unverifiable materials are detrimental to the accuracy and credibility of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is after all an encyclopaedia whose credibility is almost entirely dependent on credible outside sources. More sourced the Wikipedia contents become, the better. Thus, WP:V encourages editors to source their edits as much as possible to ensure the accuracy of Wikipedia articles. For this purpose, preventing publishing of original ideas is not enough.
I am arguing for the precedence of verifiable images over unverifiable images as prescribed by WP:V. There is no need for unverifiable original images when verifiable and free images are available. I am not suggesting the deletion of the original image for the lack of verifiability. For I would not oppose using an original image if there were no verifiable images that could be used for the purpose. I am only suggesting the replacement of the original image with a better, verified photo image in the template because the latter is available in the current case.--Saintjust (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You keep stating that the image is not verified. None of the images you refered to above are verified, either (Takeshi, Hamasaki, etc.) How do you know 100% for certain that those images are of the people they say they are? As someone else pointed out above, they could be very close look-alikes for all we know. How do you propose verifying every image on Commons so everything can be perfect for you?
What possible motive could I have for fibbing about the contents of this image? What on earth would I gain from lying about it? Go look through my 32,000+ edits and you'll see that I only go about improving the encyclopedia, not damaging it with misinformation and lies. At some point, you just need to assume good faith on the part of other editors and stop accusing them of lying (if not directly, then in so many words). Your arguments are absurd, and very, very lame. Please find something more productive to do than waste everyone's time by engaging in pointless arguments. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I had intended on staying out of this, but decided to make a few comments. Nihonjoe, no one is claiming that you are lying or intentionally trying to mislead anyone. Your edit history is of course exemplary. However, you should not expect everyone to take your word for it. WP:AGF is not the issue, either. If and when content becomes contentious, someone will want to remove / replace it. That is why we have WP:V and the normal course to oppose this is to WP:PROVEIT. Saintjust is challenging the content (which merely happens to be a picture). I do not think it is unreasonable for him to ask you to prove it. Bendono (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, he is questioning my honesty by saying that unless I can somehow prove the image really is of Japanese people (just how do you propose I do that?) then it isn't a valid and viable option for use here. By that train of logic, he's questioning the validity and veracity of almost all the images on Wikmedia Commons. That's just absurd, and there is no way what he wants is ever going to happen in a way that satisfies him. His requirements are far too high for any reasonable person to accept. He wants everything "stamped, signed, sealed and delivered in triplicate" in order to prove something which any normal person wouldn't question. He's questioning the honesty of everyone who has uploaded an "unverified" image to Commons. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Like I said again and again, I am not concerned about your "motive." isida1028 is the one questioning "your egoism," not me. What's important is that whatever your motive may be, the family photo image remains an original image of yours and so lacks "verifiability," meaning it has not been published by an authoritative source. Having an authoritative source is important because it ensures the credibility and accuracy of Wikipedia contents. Unfortunately pseudonymous Wikipedians as a source can't contribute in this regard, how ever good their motive may be. Therefore, photos from verified credible sources should always be used over original photos whenever available.
The original photos of Kitano and the rest could be easily replaced by the verified photos of them (or of other figures of equal notability) as finding the verified photos of famous figures like them is relatively easy while the same is not possible for the unknown Japanese family in your photo. That is, it's easier to improve the verifiability of the template image consisting of the portraits of famous figures. --Saintjust (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Please show me a photo of Kitano, verified by a reliable source, that isn't also a fair use image. The point is that reliable sources (except for the US government, as mentioned above) very rarely distribute content under a license that is compatible with Wikipedia. It would be almost impossible to craft a proper fair use rationale to use any photo as "fair use" in this template, because our policy is not designed to use fair use photos outside of very specific contexts related to the person pictured. (In fact, I'd argue that the fair use policy prohibits using any fair use photos in the template, because they are not integral to understanding the topic.) I'm afraid that I simply disagree with you if you want to state that public domain photos of well-known, deceased Japanese citizens are preferable to what we have here. (And we'd be generally be taking the uploaders' word for it that they are public domain images, just as much as we are taking Nihonjoe's word for it here.) Dekimasuよ! 04:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I would rather have the following six figures than the ones in Isida1028's version [1]:
All from reputable sources and free of copyright issues . Era: 1 from Kamakura (medieval), 2 from Meiji (early modern), 3 from Showa (late modern). Occupation/class: 1 scientist, 1 astronaut, 1 novelist, 1 pop singer/actress, 1 royalty, 1 samurai. Age: 1 12-year-old, 1 24-year old, 1 40-year-old, 1 52-year-old, 1 71-year-old, 1 unknown (middle age). Sex: 3 males, 3 females. Nationality: 5 Japanese, 1 American. --Saintjust (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the preponderance of black-and-white photos and, especially, the inclusion of a painting (although there's a soft spot in my heart for Minamoto no Yoritomo) to describe a living ethnic group. And I still don't like the inclusion of famous, readily-identifiable Japanese citizens such as the emperor. That's my view of the merits of the inclusion of these particular photos, setting aside for the moment their provenance and the other issues we've been discussing. Dekimasuよ! 07:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
That's just an example of template image consisting entirely of verified photos. Here is a verified family photo of Hirobumi Ito: [3]. In my opinion, "[f]amous, readily-identifiable Japanese citizens" are better than an anonymous Japanese family with no distinctly Japanese traits, looking like any other generic modern Asian family. --Saintjust (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of how you are wording it, you are basically calling a "liar" everyone who uploads an image claiming it is "x" without jumping through insane hoops that you, personally have set. Your standards for acceptance of images are so insanely high that you are discounting the countless hours spent by tens of thousands of people worldwide gathering free images that no one has any real reason to question. You are imposing your own personal standards on everyone else without reasonable discussion, instead just stating over and over that unless the images are somehow verified to be whatever they are claimed to be, the are completely unacceptable. Again, that is completely absurd. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The standard for images (photos) is not held any higher than the standard required for texts (written theories and researches). I am not calling you a "liar," although I might say that you are "nobody" with no known credentials to constitute a reputable source, like the majority of Wikipedia editors including myself. --Saintjust (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
For those that wish to continue this discussion, please make sure you read Wp:nor#Original_images first. It covers this subject in a nutshell.
My comments on the situation and specific phrases.
"...there is no need for unverifiable original images when verifiable and free images are already available..." I concur 100%. There is no need. That said, there is also nothing preventing it.
"I wouldn't complain about the image if there were no other images that could be used in the template. But there are better, verifiable ones. So there is no need for it any longer." Your assessment here is completely subjective. While you might think it is "better", others may disagree.
"That's not the kind of "verifiability" as prescribed in WP:V." Yes, but WP:NOR#Original_images clarifies and expounds upon it.
"How do you know that they are not Korean or Chinese or any other Asian ethnic by the way?" Is the photo labeled in some way by the contributor? If so, that is your verifiability IAW WP:AGF and WP:NOR.
"...in many cases Japanese people are indistinguishable from Chinese, Koreans, and other East Asian ethnics." If they are indistinguishable, then what is the problem?
"XXX is challenging the content (which merely happens to be a picture). I do not think it is unreasonable for him to ask you to prove it." It is unreasonable since it is impossible to "prove". Please read Wp:nor#Original_images for further information.
"Therefore, photos from verified credible sources should always be used over original photos whenever available." This sounds like your personal opinion, not anything I've read in Wikipedia guidelines or policies. As such, it hold no weight over established policy. If I am wrong and this is written somewhere, please show me.
"The original photos of Kitano and the rest could be easily replaced by the verified photos of them (or of other figures of equal notability) as finding the verified photos of famous figures like them is relatively easy while the same is not possible for the unknown Japanese family in your photo." Please define "verified photo". As it is, it makes it sound like the only pictures you want in Wikipedia are those of famous people.
"In my opinion, "[f]amous, readily-identifiable Japanese citizens" are better than an anonymous Japanese family with no distinctly Japanese traits, looking like any other generic modern Asian family." This comment could easily be taken as extremely offensive. I suggest editing it. I also suggest taking some time off and come back in 24 hours, then read what others have to say.
"The standard for images (photos) is not held any higher than the standard required for texts (written theories and researches)." No, the standard is actually a little lower, but not the same. Please read WP:NOR.
"I am not calling you a "liar," although I might say that you are "nobody" with no known credentials to constitute a reputable source, like the majority of Wikipedia editors including myself." And there is the problem. This doesn't assume good faith on the part of contributors. Please read the section on uploaded images in WP:NOR.
Well, there's my — BQZip01 — talk 01:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "subjective"? This discussion was originally about the choice of image for the template "Japanese ethnicity." I prefer a certain image over another for a good reason. A matter of such a choice is more or less subjective by definition anyway. This wasn't an objective policy discussion on WP:NOR and WP:V, or an AfD discussion.
I am not arguing for the deletion of Nihonjo's original image because it is not violating any policy. (Violation of policies cannot be subjectively determined, as a matter of fact.) The image is not deleteworthy because the application of WP:NOR and WP:V is more lenient on images as already discussed above in length.
I am merely expressing my preference for verified photo candidates over the unverified, original image, because even if original images might not be so bad as to require deletion, its lack of verifiability is still an undesirable attribute. Verified materials are better than unverifiable/unverified ones because the credibility and accuracy of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia are dependent on credible outside sources. That's why WP:V encourages editors to source their edits as much as possible. Although Wikipedia policies do not prohibit original images, they do encourage sourcing materials that Wikipedians add to Wikipedia. I choose a verified image over the original image because I consider verifiability essential. Prettiness does not override verifiability. That's my preference. If it's "subjective," so be it, although I believe that my preference is backed by VP:V. --Saintjust (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
As far as personal preferences go, that's fair. If this is not about obective policy discussion, then for now it seems like we can reduce this to the fact that a large majority of the commenters here do not find the current picture offensive (cf. "If they are indistinguishable, then what is the problem?" above). We understand that you don't like including the current photo, but it's become clear that framing the argument in terms of WP:NOR and WP:V is not going to garner support. Continuing to discuss that aspect of the disagreement isn't likely to progress the argument any further. As a content dispute, there does not seem to be support for the images you've proposed thus far. You might consider proposing others. I suggest closing the RfC at this point. Dekimasuよ! 03:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is talking about the offensiveness of the image. I am talking about the verifiabiliy of the image. And my "preference" for verified images is supported by what WP:V encourages.
This discussion has been going in weird directions because some people are confused and making it an issue of WP:FAITH and WP:NOR's exemption clause of original images when it's not. I am not questioning the motive of the uploader of the photo, or the "true" ethnicity of the family in the photo in itself. That's not my primary concern. Nor am I suggesting the deletion of the image for being an original image. For I know that original images are condoned under WP:NOR, and that's clearly a non-issue.
My concern is strictly regarding the verifiability of the photo. Being unverifiable and being an original material are not necessarily the same things. Verifiability of the source of the photo and provability of the "truth " of the family's ethnic background are two different things. Please stop mixing them up.
The bottom line is that you can't cite "Nihonjoe" as a source in an academic paper or news report, no matter how much trust you have in him. Sources like U.S. Navy archive and White house website are credible and reputable for practical uses. Pseudonymous Wikipedians are not. What verifiability concerns is the source's social recognition as an authority. It doesn't matter if someone is trustworthy or not as a person as far as he does not have any socially recognized credentials. --Saintjust (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Arbitrary break 3

(outdent) And therein lies the problem. In accordance with WP:NOR, Nihonjoe can be a source. Besides, if the author of the photo states that this is a photo of Japanese (remember to assume good faith...which you don't seem to be doing since you don't consider this verifiable) and "you can't tell the difference", then what is the de facto difference (your preferences aside)? Furthermore, WP:V does not state what you are suggesting.

I have been careful to stay clear of whether or not to use it and I will not officially weigh in on the matter (my comments are in the source code if anyone wants to know).

I suggest letting others weigh in on the matter over the next 24 hours and then you come back. Your position is pretty clear. Let's see what others have to say! :-) — BQZip01 — talk 05:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That Wikipedia condones original images (for the lack of better, verified ones) and that you don't want to use a material from an unknown pseudonymous editor in your work are two different things. A pseudonymous Wikipedia editor may be a source, but he is still a bad, undesirable source because he lacks verifiability. Reputable sources such as the U.S. Navy photo archive are essentially better than pseudonymous Wikipedia editors. That's a considerably big difference.
For example, you can use a photo from the U.S. Navy photo archive in your academic paper, while you can't use a photo taken and uploaded by a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor in your academic paper unless you want to make yourself look like an idiot. Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia is useful in so far as you can trace the primary source of the information that you find in Wikipedia. If Wikipedia has a photo from the U.S. Navy archive, you cite the U.S. Navy archive as a source when you are using it in your work, not Wikipedia. --Saintjust (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
"want...bad, undesirable...better..." All opinion and not WP policy or guidelines. Your preferences are noted.
As for using original images posted on Wikipedia in academic papers:
  1. It completely depends on the image and your professor's rules. I've had some classes where it was perfectly acceptable. Others viewed it negatively.
  2. In either case, what some professor allows you personally to do with an image from Wikipedia is beyond the scope of this discussion. What we are talking about is within Wikipedia. — BQZip01 — talk 07:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
By "academic papers" I meant papers prepared for academic journals or presentation at an academic conference. I didn't mean freshman term papers. You don't use materials of dubious credibility in your academic paper or in any quality publication unless you want to make a fool out of yourself. That just shows the kind of quality that materials from pseudonymous editors possess. That is, a low quality, if not a joke. Materials from verified, reputable sources in contrast are of a higher quality as a matter of fact.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that strives for quality by sourcing its contents with reputable publications in contrast with Britannica and other paper encyclopaedias that rely on the personal authority of the contributors for quality. The parts that are filled with materials from pseudonymous editors are still not up to the quality, and so need to be improved by replacing them with verified materials.
Wikipedia isn't a self-contained web playground. Wikipedia isn't a project to create a useless, joke of an encyclopaedia that you edit just for fun's sake. If nobody is going to use it as a reliable encyclopaedia seriously, then there is no need to worry about quality and sourcing. But that's not the case. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that is meant to be used outside like Encyclopaedia Britannica and other major encyclopaedias are. --Saintjust (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You can use an image from anywhere in your paper as long as you have permission from the original author of the image and provide a reference regarding the origin of the image. For instance, if you used the image being discussed here to show Japanese people, I seriously doubt any sane professor would freak out about it as much as you have (if they even paid attention to it at all). As long as your references and permissions for the image were in order, they likely wouldn't give it a second (or even a first) thought. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not talking about copyright issues here. I'm talking about the quality of sources. --Saintjust (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
What I'm saying is, we understand the point you are trying to make, but it's clear that your position represents a small minority of the editors here. Rather than repeating your argument ad infinitum, it would be better to continue proposing other images that people might consider based on their own criteria. Dekimasuよ! 14:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Seeing that you are still talking about the WP:FAITH issue and the "truth" (not "verifiability") of the family's ethnicity, I don't think you understand the "point." --Saintjust (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Leaving aside my personal opinion, I haven't mentioned AGF or truth in this discussion. I'm saying that we need to move past the reasons for the difference of opinion. We can leave all of those things alone, and look for a picture, or not look for a picture. If we're not going through new pictures together and considering whether to add them or not, this is all moot. As it stands, the current picture enjoys the support of most editors who have commented here. Dekimasuよ! 00:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I merely pointed out an important (although not so serious as to require deletion) defect of the current image, which is the lack of verifiability. I consider it important because it concerns the very fundamental idea of Wikipedia, which is that Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia appeals to the authority of peer-reviewed publications rather than the personal authority of expert contributors.
I am not the one who filed this RfC to "garner support" by making it a policy issue. In fact I said at the very beginning: "I'm not talking about general policy issues here." --Saintjust (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thus we can leave all policy issues alone, and look for a picture, or not look for a picture. If we're not going through new pictures together and considering whether to add them or not, this is all moot. Dekimasuよ! 00:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I am only clarifying my reason to disfavor the current image because some people misunderstand it as if it's a baseless accusation or a personal attack on Nihonjo's integrity. --Saintjust (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned it before but it seems to be lost in all the talk. Verifiability is not the issue with photographs, and not a valid standard for inclusion. This is a settled issue and there's not a lot of point discussing that here. If you hold a minority position otherwise you could address that via a proposed policy or guideline change but I don't think that would get much support or be practical to implement. Non-free photos in general are not verifiable. Wikidemo (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The issue of WP:NOR's exemption clause of original images has already been discussed above in length. It's irrelevant here. WP:NOR condones original images only because having some relatively safe images is better than having no images at all, especially when there are much fewer verified images that could be used on Wikipedia compared to text sources. Original images are safer than original texts (written researches/ideas) because images are less likely to be abused for the purpose of advertising original ideas than texts.
However, that doesn't mean that original images are perfectly OK. Many articles on Japanese war crimes, for example, use photographic evidences to substantiate controversial claims, and such photo images have been a cause of some long content disputes. (Image:Autopsy of a Japanese victim killed in the Jinan Incident.jpg is a prime example.) There is no way that dubious, unverifiable, original photo images could be included in such articles without causing troubles.
Moreover, publishing of original ideas is not the only concern of Wikipedia. Publishing of original ideas is considered evil precisely because it serves as an incentive for some editors to add unverifiable materials to Wikipedia, and unverifiable materials are undesirable in their own right, irrespective of whether someone intends to advertise some original ideas by doing so. For unverifiable materials are detrimental to the accuracy and credibility of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is after all an encyclopaedia whose credibility is almost entirely dependent on credible outside sources. More sourced the Wikipedia contents become, the better. Thus, WP:V encourages editors to source their edits as much as possible to ensure the accuracy of Wikipedia articles. For this purpose, preventing publishing of original ideas is not enough.
I have said this again and again also: I am only arguing for the precedence of verifiable images over unverifiable images; I am not suggesting the deletion of the original image for the lack of verifiability. For I would not oppose the inclusion of an original image if there were no verifiable images that could be used for the purpose, and I know that original images are condoned under WP:NOR and that's clearly a non-issue. I am only suggesting the replacement of the original image with a better, verified photo image in the template because the latter is available in the current case. --Saintjust (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Nice theory that you have indeed argued at great length on this page. As I have said twice now, if you want that to be part of policy you're welcome to advocate that but this is not the place. It is okay to favor better images over worse ones from an editorial standpoint but we have not seen fit to codify that that to any great extent. It's not clear that making rules would be a good idea, and I'm pretty sure that legitimacy would work very differently than verifiability does for textual sources.
No offense to the family involved but I think we could find a more illustrative picture, perhaps a more typical case of a small all-Japanese family. There must be many free ones available on flickr, or someone could contribute one. Normally, on most pages, you can replace one image with a better one and nobody will raise a complaint. If they do, like anything else it's a matter to discuss on the talk page, preferably at a practical and not at a meta level. Failing that use the dispute resolution procedures. Just propose the better image and see what happens. Forgive me if I missed it but do you have one in mind? (I would probably abstain from that debate because I don't have any real investment in this article). Wikidemo (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That's not a "theory." That's a valid preference based on the very fundamental principle of Wikipedia. "Wikipedia appeals to the authority of peer-reviewed publications rather than the personal authority of experts. Wikipedia does not require that its contributors give their legal names or provide other information to establish their identity.... Although some contributors are authorities in their field, Wikipedia requires that even their contributions be supported by published and verifiable sources" (from Wikipedia). The very quality of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is dependent on the quality of the referred sources. Pseudonymous editors aren't "experts" who could constitute a reliable source themselves.
WP:NOR's exemption clause of original images is irrelevant here. For I am not making an issue out of the image's being "original." I am questioning the image's lack of verifiability. Being unverifiable and being original are not the exact same things. A material could be "unverifiable" without being "original" (a material from some unknown third-party source without citation, for example).
An original material is both original and unverifiable. That is, the reason of its undesirability is twofold: (1) It abuses Wikipedia to advertise some original ideas; and (2) It adds dubious, unreliable contents to Wikipedia. Now, Nihonjo's photo is an original image. But I am not criticizing it for being original, i.e., I am not accusing Nihonjo of trying to abuse Wikipedia as a tool to advertise his original work. I am only opposed to its lack of verifiability. For images, the lack of verifiability is not a serious defect that requires deletion as original images are expressly condoned under WP:NOR. I know that. But it's a defect nonetheless. Unverifiability is still an undesirable feature of it.
If I were arguing for the deletion of the image, then you could refer to WP:NOR's exemption clause of original images. But I am not. I am merely expressing my preference of verified materials over unverified materials, and this preference is based on WP:V. --Saintjust (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break #4

Let me try to make this really clear so you can't possibly misunderstand, Saintjust. These are the facts in this discussion:

  1. The current image enjoys a decent amount of support. Not 100%, but a very clear majority of interested editors.
  2. Having the collage of images replacing the current image has a little support, but nothing convincing.
  3. Endlessly going over the same arguments is going to accomplish nothing.
  4. We all understand that you want images to be verifiable, and that most images on Commons do not enjoy that status.
  5. This is not the place to propose changes to WP:NOR or WP:V and how they apply to images.

If you have one or more suggestions for a replacement image (in addition to the collage already proposed), please post them here so we can discuss them. Otherwise, this discussion needs to end as it is really going nowhere. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not misunderstanding anything.
  1. Nihonjoe's original image lacks verifiability. This is an essential defect (albeit not so serious as to require deletion) because it goes against the very fundamental idea of Wikipedia, which is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that appeals to the authority of peer-reviewed publications rather than the personal authority of expert contributors.
  2. WP:NOR's exemption clause of original images and WP:FAITH are irrelevant in the current case. Nor is the "true" ethnicity of the family a primary concern.
  3. Verified images from reputable sources should always be preferred over unverified, original images. Any template image that is made from verified photos is qualitatively superior to Nihonjoe's original image. Prettiness does not override verifiability.
  4. I didn't bring all these people here by filing a RfC, presenting the issue as if it's a general policy issue when it's not. Nihonjoe did.
  5. A certain Wikipedian is suggesting the possibility of egoism in Nihonjoe's insistence on the use of his original image.
--Saintjust (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. It's not even worth addressing that anymore as you are completely deaf to reason regarding the accepted interpretation of WP:NOR and WP:V regarding images. You disagree with that interpretation; fine. But please stop waving your opinon in our faces. We know you disagree, and have told you over and over that we understand you disagree with it. Just drop it already.
  2. See #1.
  3. See #1.
  4. I asked others to come here in order to get outside eyes looking at this discussion. What does this have to do with anything, though? I've never hidden the fact that I started the RFC.
  5. I don't care if the image I uploaded is used here. I only uploaded it because someone requested a better image than the samurai image being used before. If people (not just you) decide that another image serves the purpose here better, I'm all for it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I have already shown that your argument is wrong. You cannot get away by making it an issue of WP:FAITH or NOR's exemption clause of original images because they are both irrelevant here as have already been shown above, again and again.
So far you have failed to come up with a better argument to support your case and prove me wrong. Simply disagreeing establishes nothing. Provide different reasons if you claim that my argument is wrong.
I'm not being "deaf to reason." On the contrary, I'm welcoming it. Now please resume your argument since that's what you are requesting. I'm listening. --Saintjust (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Users Nihonjoe and Saintjust have summarized their arguments twice. Does anyone else want to summarize their arguments?

Fg2 (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure: WP:NOR, WP:AGF and WP:V are at the heart of the matter and these policies apply all images taken/uploaded by users. Saintjust believes that verifiable images are preferable to unverifiable images. The problem is that Wikipedia doesn't make such a distinction (at least not in any codified guideline or policy). Those uploaded by users are considered on Wikipedia to be as verifiable as any others. This is why people keep referencing those sources. I suggest Saintjust move the discussion to one of those pages if he wants to change policy/guidelines (and if it is changed to what he wants, then this entire discussion is moot and the image should go in favor of the other images). However, as it is, this is not the policy of Wikipedia. I welcome any discussion to change the policies/guidelines, but this simply isn't the place to do it. Please move this change to one of the other pages (personally, I recommend WP:NOR).
No one is "trying to prove you wrong", but to show you that your desires and preferences aren't in alignment with WP policies and guidelines. This is a discussion over whether the image in question should be on the template. Majority and votes don't rule Wikipedia, but consensus does. I believe we have a consensus on the subject at hand (with one sole dissent).
Saintjust, if you don't agree with others' interpretations of the aforementioned policies and guidelines, I believe WP:IAR still applies and trumps your argument anyway.
In short, the image is verifiable in accordance with Wikipedia standards. If you want to change standards, I welcome the discussion...but on the appropriate talk page, not a single template page. This is a larger issue that needs to be brought up in a larger audience and a WP:RfC is perfectly appropriate in this situation. You should not take offense that it was done. As a matter of fact, you should welcome it so that a consensus (one way or the other) can be developed.
— BQZip01 — talk 04:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not making up any "distinction." I am only arguing what WP:V prescribes, viz. that verified materials should be preferred over unverified materials. Since images are a kind of material, they are naturally covered under this policy also. I don't need any distinction. Equal treatment of materials suffices as far as I am concerned.
As a matter of fact, original images are condoned as an exception under WP:NOR because images are less likely to be abused for the purpose of advertising original ideas, and the availability of verified and copyright-free images is very limited due to copyright laws. (WP:NOR also notes a disadvantage of original image, which is the possibility of editors using photo manipulation to distort the facts or position being illustrated by the photo.) However, that original images are condoned as a second-best option (since some relatively safe images are better than no images) and that original images are perfectly fine or as good as verified images are two totally different claims. There exists no policy that makes such an absurd claim as the latter in direct contradiction to the very fundamental idea of Wikipedia, which is that Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia appeals to the authority of peer-reviewed publications rather than the personal authority of expert contributors. I am not the one making up a distinction here. You are.--Saintjust (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this should not be a RfC. Nor should be about arguing for changes in policies. It should be about implementing current policies in regard to this single template. Any other discussions belong elsewhere. So please close the RfC.

WP:V is the only issue here. Quoting it:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

"Material" comes in many forms, including text and images. Per WP:V, Saintjust is justified in asking for verification. He should also be justified in removing the picture if none is given. (Of course there may be similar problems with any picture that he replaces it with.)

I have a fairly good idea about User:Nihonjoe's contributions, so I can probably take his word for it. (Call it WP:AGF if you like.) But why should a general reader, who most likely is not an editor? Do you expect them to read through a page's history, track down individual contributors, and then try to make such a judgment call? I certainly hope not. Just like with other "material", "any reader should be able to check that" it is reliable.

What to do? First, I suggest removing the image entirely until a suitable one can be agreed upon. Next, suggest and consider individual images. Bendono (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Should be the other way around, or else we're just taking advantage of the low visibility of this template. The top picture on California condor was on the main page all day Tuesday. It was taken by a Wikipedian and isn't verified. It's clearly a picture of a condor. What are the chances you could find a consensus to remove the picture from that article before finding something else to put in its place? I've been saying the whole time that I'm willing to look at suggested images. I even looked for about 30 minutes myself last night for any appropriate pictures of modern-day Japanese families on .gov sites. I was unsuccessful. If you find something, let us know. Dekimasuよ! 06:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
(Admittedly, I have not seen the main page in years. (I'm bookmarked to my user page.)) Did anyone challenge the verifiability of that condor image? If not, then there really should not be an issue. Not every statement needs to be cited and verified. However, whenever someone disagrees with particular material, as in this case, it needs verification or may (ultimately) be removed.
Lets consider your "It's clearly a picture of a condor" statement in relation to this template. Is this image clearly an image of "Japanese ethnicity" or a "Japanese family"? I have been in Japan for about a decade and I really do not know. The concept of ethnicity is notoriously vague. The only legal definition of "Japanese" is one of citizenship. That includes Caucasian, blonds, etc. You may even someday take Japanese citizenship. Above, Someguy0830 wrote: "[...] anyone can take one glance and draw the near-instant conclusion that those the photograph pictures are of Japanese descent." No offense, but that seems to be a very stereotypical and un-encyclopedic response.
Just because a more appropriate picture has not been found does not necessarily mean that the current one is acceptable either. Suppose a reference can not be found supporting a statement in article X. Tagging it for needing verification is fine, but not leaving it there for an indefinite period of time until a source can (or may never) be found. It will be difficult to verify this one, but that is not an excuse to make it exempt either. The template works just fine with or without an image. Bendono (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't necessarily mean that the current one is acceptable, but it does enjoy broad support (per a previous run-through, at least 7 editors have written in favor of it here). As far as Someguy0830 is concerned, I think he is trying to say that the image passes the duck test. You can't tell whether or not they are Japanese; I can't tell; Saintjust says "in many cases Japanese people are indistinguishable from Chinese, Koreans, and other East Asian ethnics." If no one cares to challenge its legitimacy, it certainly doesn't require verification (Chardish above: "The 'information must be backed by sources' quite clearly only applies to material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. If no one is contesting that those people are Japanese then the verifiability of that image is an utter non-issue."); at the same time, as you suggest, it indicates that the photo probably doesn't add anything of value to the template. Dekimasuよ! 07:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we disagree on whether the current image is being challenged, or rather whether it's being argued that it should be removed because it is susceptible to a challenge. It's clear we don't normally do such things preemptively. Dekimasuよ! 07:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me state my opinion more clearly: unless someone can identify an idea that this image is supposed to represent, its verifiability (as opposed to provenance) can't be challenged. What's being challenged is the editorial decision to add the image to this template. As that is a personal preference (stated many times above) and support for the current image has been expressed by many editors, it seems to me that the image should remain until an image enjoying a wider consensus is found. Dekimasuよ! 08:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
No offense, Bendono, but there's really no way of proving the image is of Japanese people that wouldn't be an insane amount of work. Just how do you expect me to "verify" it? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
He's not asking you to, I don't think. Dekimasuよ! 07:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
That's possible. If so, sorry if I sound curt. This whole discussion has gone insane. I just find it absurd that Saintjust and others like him are care enough about such a non-issue like this that they spend so much time attacking perceived, but non-existent, problems rather than actually doing something useful to help improve Wikipedia. Experiences like this are what drive people away from editing Wikipedia. I'm done with this issue. Do whatever the hell you want to with this template. I'm not going to bother with it anymore. It's not worth my time and causes me to waste too much time defending something that shouldn't have to be defended. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Nihonjoe, I am not asking you to. And I apologize if I upset you. I think that Saintjust's argument both makes a lot of sense and is supported by our current policies. His statements did not seem to be given fair consideration, so I decided to voice my support.
Whether he (or anyone else) is or is not challenging the image, I will not say. I do not challenge it. Not because I think it is appropriate, but rather because I am generally not interested in images and this template is so undefined. Absurd or not, I can understand that some issues are really important to some. Personally, I will not touch certain pages because I so vehemently disagree with some issues, despite arguing them for many months.
Should anyone oppose this image, I think that verification is an appropriate argument to make consistent with our existing policies. Bendono (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Outside opinion. WP:NOR trumps WP:V in this case. They are same level policy and WP:V states that it works hand in hand with WP:NOR, hence anything on it should not contradict WP:NOR. The other problem is the chance of images being challenged. In this case, the chance of it being of Japanese people is high with a small chance of being mistaken for other Asian people, but since the corresponding text states that it is Japan related, the chances of it being challenged seriously are very low even without having Nihonjoe's word to say it is of Japanese people. This discussion is much ado about nothing, imho. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to "trump" in the current case to begin with. --Saintjust (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
You are the one that stated it wasn't verifiable. Ergo, if another rule overrides your objection, it certainly is applicable. If you are saying that your objection is to the appropriateness of the image (not its placement), you are in the small minority that doesn't like it. Please realize your objection (in all its forms) has simply not been agreed upon by the other editors. No matter your objection, WP:Consensus and WP:IAR apply and, in this case, arguing the point is not really going to accomplish much. If you want to continue the discussion, fine. But realize that this isn't going to go anywhere. — BQZip01 — talk 01:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand the concept of verifiability very well as exemplified when you said: "[t]hose uploaded by users are considered on Wikipedia to be as verifiable as any others." "Verifiable" in the context of Wikipedia means that "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Since Wikipedia editors themselves don't constitute "a reliable source" for being anonymous or pseudonymous, no original images are verifiable by definition. Whatever you consider "overriding" is very likely a product of your misunderstanding. --Saintjust (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I perfectly understand the concept of verifiability. However, what you are saying is that WP:V is the only thing that applies, which clearly isn't the case. WP:V also states "Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. The others include Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another..." As such, your assertion that Wikipedia editors are inherently not reliable sources (a violation of WP:AGF) is not in line with WP policy. The "overriding" concern is that there is an exception made for uploaded images.
We should also note that we are talking about Wikipedia here, and not the academic community. While they may not accept these images as being as reliable as others, they also allow sources that are not accepted here (such as interviews) and original research. While your goal of making it useful everywhere is admirable, these are simply two different worlds with two different sets of rules. Neither one is "right" but each have their own standards for acceptance for different reasons.
I understand and would agree 100% with your assertions if the aforementioned quote didn't exist.
In short, if you ignore WP:NOR and the exceptions made, your interpretation of WP:V is incomplete. — BQZip01 — talk 03:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing for WP:V or WP:NOR to "override" in the current case. That's an accusation that you are making. Not me.
Although WP:V and WP:NOR are closely related, they are not prescribing the exact same thing. WP:V is there because "Wikipedia appeals to the authority of peer-reviewed publications (rather than the personal authority of experts like in Britannica) and so reliable sources are necessary to substantiate the Wikipedia contents. WP:NOR, in contrast, is there because "Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way."
That is, WP:NOR primarily concerns the abuse of Wikipedia as a tool to promote one's original, unpublished ideas, whereas WP:V primarily concerns the quality (accuracy and credibility) of Wikipedia contents. Edits that are abusing Wikipedia to promote one's original ideas are strictly prohibited. However, edits that are merely lacking citations (i.e. unverifiable) are not directly deleteworthy. For unsourced edits could be removed only when questioned or contested by some other editors for a good reason. Clearly these are decisions of two different concerns, and there is no point of conflict between them.
WP:NOR condones original images not because they are "as verifiable as any others" (misunderstanding on your part), but because (1) they are less likely to be abused for the very evil that WP:NOR prohibits, viz. "publishing, publicizing or promoting original research" on Wikipedia, and because (2) the availability of verified and copyright-free images is limited due to copyright laws. Original images are still unverifiable even if they are not trying to promote any original ideas.
Original images are exempt from deletion on the ground of WP:NOR. But as far as WP:V is concerned, they are still unverifiable and so not desirable. Therefore, original images should be removed if there are editors who contest the legitimacy of them, or when there are better verified images that could replace them. And like I have been saying, I am not proposing the deletion of the template image, but the replacement of it with one of better, verified candidates that are available in the current case.
In either way, there exists no policy that makes such an absurd claim as that original images are perfectly ok because they are "as verifiable as any others."
Lastly, WP:About writes that: "Studies suggest that Wikipedia is broadly as reliable as Encyclopedia Britannica.... There is a tentative consensus, backed by a gradual increase in academic citation as a source, that it provides a good starting point for research, and that articles in general have proven to be reasonably sound." That's the kind of quality that Wikipedia is striving for. We aren't talking about freshman term papers here. --Saintjust (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is not becoming any more productive or coming any closer to resolution. I'd suggest disengagement for a while. Dekimasuよ! 05:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break #5

Thanks for the advice Dekimasu. I've taken 24 hours to review the situation and have noticed a few things:

  1. I could have been MUCH more clear when I stated original images "are as verifiable as any others". My point was that anyone who uploads and image and says "this is XYZ," is as verifiable as someone who uploads a free use image, such as a photo from the National Archives that they scanned in. Each image can be carefully checked against the original for accuracy. What someone claims what they upload an image is as verifiable as any other claim, but it may require some effort on the part of other editors to verify. That was all I meant by it.
  2. The other problem I have is that none of the following sentences are stated as policy or a guideline (emphasis mine(. If anything changes on those pages, then I will be happy to revise my opinion.

"But as far as WP:V is concerned, [original images] are still unverifiable and so not desirable." Nothing I can find on Wikipedia states this. "Therefore, original images should be removed if there are editors who contest the legitimacy of them, or when there are better verified images that could replace them." Again, simply not a policy, but this user's preference. While his goals may be admirable (to build a world-class encyclopedia), excluding something because of a personal preference is not the way to go. — BQZip01 — talk 18:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"Verifiable" in the context of Wikipedia means that "readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Other users can verify if a certain edit is properly sourced by checking the source that is cited in the edit. If an edit cites an article from the New York Times, for example, you can obtain a copy of the article from your local library and see if it is being referred to properly in the edit. Original materials are not "verifiable" by definition because they are not "reputable" sources to begin with. Also they are not readily available to other Wikipedia editors like major journals and papers are. (You can't visit the residence of the Wikipedia editor who uploaded the image and check the original data in his digicam.)
Images are a kind of materials, and WP:V states: "[e]ditors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed," "[t]he burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation," "Reliable sources are necessary... to substantiate material within articles." --Saintjust (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with just about every point that you make, Saintjust. However, rather than arguing theory, does any challenge the current image? Bendono (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Like I have said again and again ad nauseam, I am not suggesting the deletion of the original image out of a concern that the "true" ethnicity of the family in the photo may be something else than Japanese like Chinese or Korean (even though it is definitely not obvious from "one glance"). Nor am I suggesting deletion for the lack of verifiability. I am only suggesting the replacement of the original image in the template with a better, verified image.
Verified materials are preferred over unverified ones because reputable sources "substantiate" Wikipedia contents, because they add credibility to Wikipedia. The original inputs of anonymous/pseudonymous Wikipedia editors aren't desirable because they do not constitute a reputable source. That is, being unverifiable is an essentially undesirable feature.
However, like I have said this again and again also, being merely "unverifiable" is not as serious a defect as being "original," i.e., abusing Wikipedia for the purpose of promoting one's original ideas. Articles that are made obviously to promote some original ideas are completely unacceptable and straight to AfD. Edits that are merely unverifiable, in contrast, may be condoned for the lack of better ones as far as nobody challenges their legitimacy.
Also, having some unverified but reasonably safe (i.e. unlikely to abuse Wikipedia for the promotion of original ideas) input is better than having nothing. Therefore, from the very beginning, I have been saying that I would not oppose the use of the original image if there were no verified images that could be used for the same purpose. But the fact of the matter is that a plenty of verified images are available in the current case. --Saintjust (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not challenge it. It is an illustration. The people appear ethnically Japanese. It does not matter if they are of a different ethnicity; the photograph appropriately illustrates Japanese ethnicity. Fg2 (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

The template is titled "Japanese ethnicity"; however, this is not defined. What precisely are the criteria defining Japanese ethnicity? And what are those sources? The same template says that it is called 日本人 in Japanese, which is easy enough to define: 日本の国籍をもつ者。日本国民。(source: Daijirin). "One who holds Japanese citizenship. A Japanese citizen." That seems simple enough. The original Citizenship Law (国籍法) was promelgated in 1899, but was updated in 1950 and may be found here. These resources should be sufficiently credible.

Several comments from above include:

  • "[...] anyone can take one glance and draw the near-instant conclusion that those the photograph pictures are of Japanese descent."
  • "The people appear ethnically Japanese."

So, just by looking at the image, you can determine that they have Japanese chitizenship? I certainly can not. While I respect your opinions, per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", and "[...] any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source [...]". Further, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." "Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed [...]".

And if the defintion is not 日本人, ie, one who holds Japanese citizenship, then what is it? And where are those resources? Of course in that case, 日本人 would need to then be removed from the template, too.

Perhaps a better image would one of a Japanese passport. Bendono (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that is only one definition of the word. 日本人 does not mean only "Japanese citizen" but also a person of Japanese decent. There are different types, including those who live in Japan, nikkei, etc. Breen's WWWJDIC defines it as "日本人 【にほんじん】 (n) Japanese person; Japanese people; (P); EP". 日本人 is to Japan as Russian is to Russia. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
What does "Japanese decent" mean? Definitions? References? Specific criteria? Even though Edict is a community-based dictionary (even I have submitted entries) and not a reliable resource, what does it tell you? Absolutely nothing about what "Japanese" means.
If you read the 国籍法 that I linked to, it specifically defines 日本国民 "Japanese citizen". A little long, but I emphasis the first two clauses. Although now obsolete, the original 1899 law defined 日本人 "Japanese" as 子は出生の時其父が日本人なるときは日本人とす "A child shall be Japanese if his / her father is Japanese at the time of of birth".
Legally, it is quite clear what "Japanese" means. What does "Japanese ethnicity" mean? Any references? Bendono (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I only came here after reverting with reference to WP:ETHNIC; however, you can read Ethnic group. Self-identification is one means of establishing the bounds of these ethnic group articles, as per WP:NCON, and this self-identification is the result of a combination of cultural and "racial" elements. Thus, the article overviews cultural and "racial" relationships within the larger ethnic group.
Also, we are tasked with being descriptive rather than prescriptive when handling articles, and the common use of the term "Japanese people" in the English-speaking world includes both 日本人 and 日系人. There was an extended naming dispute at Ethnic Japanese over the ambiguity in that term (I was a party) that eventually ended up getting that article moved to Japanese diaspora. The article on Japanese people also discusses various 日系 communities.
Finally, this conversation should probably be taking place at Talk:Japanese people rather than here. I agree that the name of this template is inconsistent with the article, but that's about all we can say here that actually relates to the topic. Dekimasuよ! 10:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Lots of talk, but still no verifiable references. I presented some, but they were dismissed because somehow a wikiproject seems to supercede them. Bendono (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
You presented references to show that Japanese citizens are called Japanese people. You did not show by those references that people of Japanese ancestry who aren't Japanese citizens are not called Japanese people. I reverted you because you changed the scope of the article without discussion or bringing the rest of the article in line with that scope. I was not aware of the discussion here at that point. Please give me at least a little time to find sources. Dekimasuよ! 11:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
And I don't see any evidence that your Japanese sources have any bearing on English usage of the term "Japanese people". Dekimasuよ! 11:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The U.S. census, for one, regards Japanese-Americans, who naturally don't hold a Japanese citizenship, as constituting an independent ethnic group.
Relevance?
The Kōjien: "日本人。1. 日本国に国籍を有する人。日本国民。2. 人類学的にはモンゴロイドの一。皮膚は黄色、虹彩は黒褐色、毛髪は黒色で直毛。言語は日本語。"
I already mentioned meaning 1. I suppose you are emphasizing meaning 2. So, a person who is mongoloid, yellow skin, brown eyes, black, straight hair, and who speaks Japanese. Applying that to the current image, there are some hair issues and I can not confirm the language part. (I have some Korean and Chinese friends who this definition of Japanese ethnicity would apply to though.) Also, notice that that such a person need not have any relationship to Japan.
The Encyclopedia Britannica:"Japanese ethnicity. The Japanese people are members of the Asiatic geographic race and are closely akin to the other peoples of eastern Asia; they constitute the overwhelming majority of the population."
What population? Presumably Japan. In which case, we are talking about Japanese citizens.
The Columbia Encyclopedia: "Japan. Japan is an extremely homogeneous society with non-Japanese, mostly Koreans, making up less than 1% of the population. The Japanese people are primarily the descendants of various peoples who migrated from Asia in prehistoric times; the dominant strain is N Asian or Mongoloid, with some Malay and Indonesian admixture."
Again, the population of Japan. Generally speaking, Japanese citizens.
The American Heritage® Dictionary: "Japanese. 1a. A native or inhabitant of Japan. b. A person of Japanese ancestry."　--Saintjust (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
As an "inhabitant of Japan", this would include me. More likely, this is referring to Japanese citizens. What does "Japanese ancestry" mean?
A wide number of definitions which for the most part contradict each other. Applying them each to the current picture, I still can not verify that they illustrate "Japanese ethnicity". Bendono (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
What the Kōjien gives is pretty much the definition of an ethnic group. You might want to first take a look at the article "ethnic group" for the definition of ethnicity. It's a rather complex concept.
The category "Japanese" in the U.S. census is about ethnicity and not citizenship. The CIA World factbook [4] also writes: "Ethnic groups: Japanese 98.5%, Koreans 0.5%, Chinese 0.4%, other 0.7%."
The Encyclopedia Britannica expressly states the word "Japanese ethnicity." The Japanese ethnic constitute "the overwhelming majority" of the population of Japanese citizens. --Saintjust (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Two vastly different definitions are given:
  1. a person with Japanese citizenship; a citizen of Japan
  2. a person characteristic of the following traits: mongoloid, yellow skin, brown eyes, black, straight hair, speaks Japanese. Is it the intention of this template to utilize the later? I am fine with either; I just want to clarify the issue. Bendono (talk) 23:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The latter, as a matter of fact.
An ethnic group is "a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry.... also defined from the recognition by others as a distinct group and by common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioural or biological traits.
So, if the Japanese people are considered as an ethnic group (as they are in the U.S. census, Encyclopedia Britannica, Kojien, etc.), then by definition they share a common ancestry, a common culture, a common language, common biological traits, etc., and they also identify themselves as the memebers of the group thus characterized.
"人類学" from the Kojien definiton is anthropology, a discipline that was formerly known as "ethnology" and studies ethnic groups . Kojien also writes: "【大和民族】日本民族に同じ。→日本人。" 大和民族 is the Yamato people. --Saintjust (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we have made some headway. Kōjien is a perfectly acceptable resource. However, it does not mention anything about common culture, religious, or behavioral traits. Per the definition, it is entirely physiological and linguistic.

I think that this is an important point because by using this definition, ethnically Japanese do not necessarily have to have anything to do with Japan. This makes sense, as, for instance, this template cites large numbers of ethnically Japanese living in Brazil, US, Philippines, China, Canada, Peru etc. The common physical traits are due to a common ancestry (extending over millions of years), but that does not mean anything about common culture, religion, or behavioral traits. Bendono (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Kōjien is only a Japanese dictionary that gives concise definitions of words. Kojien also has a definition of "民族": "文化の伝統を共有することによって歴史的に形成され、同属意識をもつ人々の集団。文化の中でも特に言語を共有することが重要視され、また宗教や生業形態が民族的な伝統となることも多い。" The bottom line is that the Japanese are widely recognized as a distinct ethnic group, and whatever definition of "ethnicity" applies to the Japanese ethnic also. --Saintjust (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I must call foul on that. Kōjien lists a fairly detailed definition, at least more specific than anything else presented so far. By applying the definition of another term (民族) to the definition of ethnic Japanese (日本人, meaning 2 in Kōjien) to advance a position not originally specified in the resource, this is a violation of WP:SYN. If the Kōjien definition is not sufficient, then use another one. Just pick one, but do not merge them all together into something so vague and undefined. Without a precise definition, I can not determine if 1) this image is representative of the subject and 2) if Japanese people is about the people of Japan or about ethnic Japanese who share common physiological and linguistic traits, but do not necessarily have any specific relationship to Japan. Bendono (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
This template is for the English term "Japanese ethnicity" and not "日本人." "日本人" is just a common Japanese word that is synonymous with 日本民族/大和民族, the direct Japanese equivalent of the concept Japanese ethnicity. Since the word "日本人" (a generic noun) also refers to Japanese nationals/citizens, it's not surprising that the Kojien definition of 日本人 as an ethnic group is rather meager. Besides, Kojinen is just a Japanese dictionary that is not meant to provide a comprehensive, academically rich explanation of the concept. So whatever "point" made in the Kojien entry of the word "日本人" is rather trivial other than the fact that the word "日本人" is synonymous with 日本民族. --Saintjust (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) You are confusing race (民族) with ethnicity. I am satisfied with Kōjien definition as given; however, I do not think any extended analysis or re-interpretation of it is fair. We may not agree on Kōjien, and that is fine, but we still need a reliable resource that clearly defines these terms. The other resources given above are about the "population of Japan", "inhabitant of Japan". In general, but not exclusively, these are Japanese citizens. Also, it excludes those who reside outside of Japan but may have "Japanese ancestry". Nor does it say anything specific about physiological or linguistic traits, not to mention behavioral and religious either. Any other definitions? Perhaps other editors may prefer English resources. Bendono (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Race is "人種," not "民族." Race is a biological concept. Ethnicity is a more culture-oriented concept, and primarily a matter of group-identification (or "同属意識").
The Japanese ethnic is an "ethnic group" just like Japan is a "country." This isn't the right place to discuss the definition of the concept ethnicity itself as much as you don't talk about the obvious definition of "country" in the article Japan.
The article "Japanese people" is about the Japanese ethnic just like French people, Germans, Italians, Han Chinese, and Koreans are articles about respective ethnic groups, under the category "ethnic groups." Articles on the citizens or the residents of these nation-states are named "Demography/Demographics of xxx" and put under Category:Demographics by country --Saintjust (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
While 人種 and 民族 are sufficiently different terms in Japanese, both may be rendered as race in English depending on the context. That conversation is not particularly relevant here. However, do note that 民族 share a common residence (country), which is precisely why they share a common culture, religion, behavior etc. Again, that would exclude "ethnic Japanese" who live outside of Japan but who may have a Japanese ancestry.
Although you piped the link, the category you mentioned is actually Category:Ethnic groups by region. Emphasis on region. The Japanese ethnic group, according to this template, exists in places such as Brazil, the US, Philippines, China etc. Oh yeah, also in Japan. Thus, by region, it is specifically the Japanese ethnic group existing in Japan, as opposed to various other regions. In which case, it is really about the residents of Japan (generally Japanese citizens), their culture, history etc. Not about ethnic Japanese who have Japanese ancestry but who do not necessarily have any modern relationship to Japan.
However, we still do not have a working definition of "Japanese ethnicity". It needs some verifiable resources. Bendono (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
What's most important about ethnicity is the recognition that one belongs in a certain group of people who share the same traits. The set of traits themselves (whatever they may be) don't determine one's ethnicity on their own without the self-identification. Ethnicity is a different concept from such concepts that some scientists classify from outside as race and specie. Like I said earlier, it's a more complex concept .
The ethnic group articles are categorized by regional origin just like dog breeds are categorized. Just because some countries other than Germany also have a big population of German Shepherds doesn't mean they are no longer a dog breed of Germany. --Saintjust (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Precisely what those "traits" are is the core of the discussion. Kōjien specifically listed them as following: mongoloid, yellow skin, brown eyes, black, straight hair, speaks Japanese. As is, this seems appropriate and sufficient to me. However, it does not specifically list other traits that you are arguing for, some of which seem to conflict with each other. I am willing to look at other resources if presented, but please understand that I can not so easily accept your opinion in place of verifiable resources. Yes, it is a complex concept, which is why they are all the more important. Bendono (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Read the article ethnic groups for major traits that characterize an ethnic group. Most Jews and Gypsies (Romani people), for example, haven't shared a common residence for the majority of their history but still constitute an ethnic.
Anyway, just stating "The Japanese people are an ethnic group of East Asia" suffices. --Saintjust (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
That just evades the issue and does not even account for ethnic Japanese not in East Asia, such those in Brazil and the US. Without a solid definition, then there really is no need to make the differentiation in the first place since it is a non-concept. On the assumption that there is a Japanese ethnic group, what specific traits differentiate them from other ethnic groups? I am well aware of your opinion, so there is no need to repeat. What we need, though, are reliable resources.
Although I should not repeat, I am quite happy with Kōjien's definition: mongoloid, yellow skin, brown eyes, black, straight hair, speaks Japanese. This gives definite criteria and accounts for ethnic Japanese both in and outside of Japan. Without anything better, this seems ideal to me for the time being. Bendono (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Read the article "ethnic group" for definition. It clearly states "on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry," which oversea Japanese do share. There is no need to expound on the concept of ethnicity in this template or the article "Japanese people" as much as there is no need to expound on the concept of country in the article "Japan." --Saintjust (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I have read it several times now. Most notably is the quote from Max Weber: "The whole conception of ethnic groups is so complex and so vague that it might be good to abandon it altogether." In any case, is that the definition that you want to give? If so, it should be clarified in the actual article as such. However, more importantly, there still are no verifiable resources about Japanese ethnicity, if the concept even exists. Bendono (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
If you don't like the concept of ethnicity, then you might want to raise the issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthropology or somewhere more appropriate for such a general issue than this disc page, and propose AfDs for all the articles on ethnic groups. --Saintjust (talk) 09:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I neither like or dislike it. However, we have a responsibility to accurately reflect the literature with verifiable resources. Kōjien is the only one that has provided a concise list of characteristic traits: mongoloid, yellow skin, brown eyes, black, straight hair, speaks Japanese. Until better resources are provided, I am perfectly satisfied with listing those and being done with the issue. Are you? Bendono (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The Kojien definition is only a meager dictionary definition of the word and hardly a good one. You seem to think that there exist a set of some exclusive traits that necessarily determine the Japaneseness of a person, but that's not the case. The boundary of ethnicity is not as clear as that of concepts like species. The traits that Kojien and other sources list up are simply some leading characteristics that are widely possessed among the members of the ethnic group. They are not the only traits of the Japanese people, an ethnic group with a rich culture and a long tradition. Other traditional cultures are as much the characteristics of the Japanese people as those listed in the Kojien, even though "文化の中でも特に言語を共有することが重要視." It's not like you stop being Japanese once you lose one of the characteristics. You don't cease to be Japanese just because you stop speaking Japanese language although Japanese language is the primary language of the Japanese ethnic. Anyway, for this Wikipedia article, the Encyclopedia Britannica's mentioning of "Japanese ethnicity" is good enough for it to be classified as an ethnic group. --Saintjust (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, I respect your opinion. However, Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for it. Kōjien clearly defines the specific traits. You may disagree, and that is fine, but again this is not the place for it. In other words, you will need verifiable resources. Anything else must be removed.
Britannica is OK. Lets look at the article. The first thing to notice is that it is titled "Japan". So already we are talking about Japan, not anywhere else such as Brazil, US, Philippines, China etc, so that excludes those "ethnic Japanese" outside of Japan (unless you have another resource specifically states otherwise; but of course you will need to be careful not to violate WP:SYN at the same time). Next, lets look at the full quote sentence which you attempted to quote: "The Japanese people are members of the Asiatic geographic race and are closely akin to the other peoples of eastern Asia; they constitute the overwhelming majority of the population." It specifically says Asiatic geographic race. I suggest that you read Ethnicity#Ethnicity_and_race where it discusses the difference between ethnicity and race. Bendono (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Interpreting the Kojien definition as if it presents a set of traits that exclusively and necessarily define the Japanese ethnicity is an unfounded, original, stretched interpretation of yours that is not in Kojien. Fundamentalisticaly interpreting the Kojien definition as if it excludes Japanese-Americans and other oversea Japanese populations from the Japanese ethnicity is simply ridiculous. If you seriously believe that you are right, then go ahead and delete all the references to religion, literature, arts, and history in the article Japanese people that are not expressly listed as the "traits" of the Japanese people in Kojien.
"Japanese" isn't a race. There exists no source that presents the Japanese as a race. This also is a creation of your original interpretation. --12:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
??? Where do you get that idea? Please verify exactly what Kōjien, quote: "人類学的にはモンゴロイドの一。皮膚は黄色、虹彩は黒褐色、毛髪は黒色で直毛。言語は日本語。" It mentions absolutely nothing else. As for "race", that is from your Britannica reference. Neither you or me are right or wrong. We just quote the resources. Bendono (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
(unindent)

[edit] Arbitrary break #1

(unindent) Common "genealogy or ancestry" and "biological traits" that characterize an ethnic group are "racial" traits also. But that doesn't mean that an ethnic group is a race. Besides, race is a controversial concept that is according to many scientists today "imprecise" and "arbitrary." Wikipedia classifies articles on persons by ethnicity and not by race for a good reason. We have genetics for biological classification today, and in terms of genetics the boundaries of the peoples are even more vague. Most individuals from East Asia are so indistinguishable in terms of genetics that categories like "Japanese," "Chinese," and "Korean" aren't of any use if you only rely on genetic/biological/racial traits. --Saintjust (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to convince me. I merely quoted Britannica which mentioned race. What it all comes down to in the end is verifiable resources. Content is drawn from them or removed without them. Bendono (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
So are you suggesting the removal of all the references to religion, literature, arts, and history in the article Japanese people that are not expressly listed as the "traits" of the Japanese people in Kojien?
The "race" in the Britannica entry of Japanese etnicity is "the Asiatic geographic race." "Japanese people" isn't a race. The Japanese people are only "members of" it. It doesn't say that the Japanese constitute a race or a racial subcategory. Also, what's meant by "the Asiatic geographic race" here is more a gene pool than a traditional racial classification like Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid. --Saintjust (talk) 13:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
It really depends on the definition of "Japanese people". The legal definition is clear. The ethnic one is not. Again, no need to convince me. I am just asking for is verifiable sources about "Japanese ethnicity". We do not need to use Kōjien, but it still needs to be sourced. WP:PROVEIT states: "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long [...]". Bendono (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with each of these is that there is not a direct translation from English into...well...Japanese. In English, the term has three basic meanings: a language, a citizen of Japan, someone who's ancestry is from Japan; confusing the situation even further, "ethnicity" applies to both of the last two terms. It would be better to define the term in English before we try to figure out the equivalent in Japanese (this is the English language wikipedia after all...) — BQZip01 — talk 05:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Kōjien definition has no bearing on English usage. If Bendono really wants to remove the {{Nihongo}} from the beginning of the article and 日本人 from this template, I think it's silly, but it doesn't detract seriously from the article. As far as the sources Bendono wants us to show as far as usage is concerned, we should be able to find them. It might also be good to point out here that, as Bendono noted, this is more a discussion of what "Japanese" means than what "Japanese people" or "Japanese ethnicity" means. The common term is "Japanese", but as that is a dab page for good reasons and is usually used as an adjectival form, Japanese people has been relegated to the longer title. Dekimasuよ! 02:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resources

Found more sources:

  • Japanese Encarta: "日本人 にほんじん 日本人という語の意味は、大きく3種類にわけることができる。第1は日本国籍を有する日本国民という意味で、人間を国家単位で、政治的に分類したときのグループである。第2は日本人種という意味で、人間を生物学的・身体的特徴によって分類したときのグループである。第3は日本民族という意味で、文化を基準に人間を分類したときのグループである。また、文化のなかで言語はとくに重要なので、日本民族は日本語を母語としてもちいる人々とほぼ考えてよい。これら 3種の日本人が同義ではないことはいうまでもない。" [5]
(Casual translation for any who want to follow along.)
"Nihonjin (日本人) The word Nihonjin can be largely divided into three categories. The first means citizens of Japan who hold Japanese citizenship, and it is this group when politically classifying people at the national level. The second means Japanese race, and it is this group when classifying people by biological and physical characteristics. The third means ethnic Japanese, and it is this group when classifying people based on culture. In addition, language is an especially important part of that culture, so ethnic ethnic Japanese may generally be thought of as those people who use Japanese as their native language. It need not be mentioned that these three types of Nihonjin are not the same." Bendono (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • マイペディア（平凡社）："日本人 にほんじん 人類学上は，旧石器時代あるいは縄文時代以来，現在の北海道〜沖縄諸島（南西諸島）に住んだ集団を祖先にもつ人々。また法律上は，日本国に国籍を有する人々。多くは日本語を母語とし，身体的特徴として一般に皮膚の色は黄色，虹彩は黒褐色，毛髪は黒色で直毛，また幼児期に蒙古斑が現れることなどから，人種としてはモンゴロイド大人種に属していることは疑いない。" --Saintjust (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
"Nihonjin (日本人) In anthropological terms, the people who have ancestors who have lived in [the lands between] present Hokkaidō and the Okinawa Islands (Nansei Islands) since the Paleolithic era or the Jōmon period. Also, legally, those who have Japanese citizenship. Many use Japanese as their native language, and due to physical characteristics such as yellow skin, black-brown eyes, black, straight hair, and the appearance of Mongolian spots as an infant, are undoubtedly part of the large Mongoloid race."
Some notes. Two of these three were listed in Kōjien. However, it was not very popular due to being a Japanese (language) resource. I can not speak for others, but as I have said before, I am fine with both English and Japanese resources. And I find these resources perfectly acceptable. If we use them, may I assume that we will accurately reflect the resources by listing all three meanings? Those being nationality, race, and ethnic. Bendono (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I still don't like the idea of using Japanese-language sources to denote English-language usage, but thank you for your research. I think that the mention of "physical characteristics" from the second excerpt seems more appropriate for the article than translating 日本民族 as "Japanese race". (I've been mostly inactive over the last week and haven't been able to find reliable sources in English on this topic, but I hope to get back to it soon.) The portion of the intro prompting the OR tag ("often") should just be pulled. Dekimasuよ! 01:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)