Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 02:07, 28 March 2022

Archives
Archive 1 (pre-mediation discussion)

Thanks to the parties for discussing things while a mediator was being assigned to this case, albeit without much action in the last 48 hours. I am happy to report that one member of the Committee is about to pick this up. For his benefit and at his request, I have archived the pre-mediation discussion, so that consensus-building can start afresh and with the guidance of the mediator. Thanks for your patience and I apologise for the delay. Cheers, Daniel 23:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Eugenics in Showa Japan

view edit delete watch
Filed: 13:55, November 1 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Azukimonaka (talk · contribs)
• Flying tiger (talk · contribs)
• ZayZayEM (talk · contribs)

Articles involved

• Eugenics in Showa Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Japanese expansionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• a few other articles involving Japanese activities, events and politics during WWII eg Manchukuo
• Article Comfort women was also involved in the same way as a source was disputed ]
• War edit has been extended to Eugenics since yesterday (--Flying tiger 13:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

Other steps in dispute resolution that have been attempted

• Third party neutral native Japanese speaker advice on source content
• Request for comment.
• Talkpage
• user:ZayZayEM's request for protection of 21th October ]

Issues to be mediated

The party filing this request uses this section to list the issues for mediation. Other parties can list additional issues in the section below.

• Inclusion of references, sources and links added by other users
• Use of encyclopedic level of English

Mediator

Hi, I'm Ryan, I'm an administrator here. Once again, apologies for the delay here but I hope we can get started as soon as possible. Firstly, could you all clarify that you're happy with me mediating the dispute? Ryan Postlethwaite 23:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm happy as long as additional issues (WP:V , See also content, Topic clarification ) are looked into too.--ZayZayEM (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  I will remove myself from this discussion if this becomes an identical clone to the previous archive. The previous discussion has been archived, not dismissed. I do not think we need to go over this again. I will also not engage in any non-mediator directed polls.--ZayZayEM (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • If you propose it, I answer your proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azukimonaka (talk • contribs) 10:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, welcome; I'm sure you're competent and have goodwill but I hope you have also some knowledge of Japanese history as many technical issues are disputed. Most of all, I hope, if it is not already done, you will take time to read all the text related to the background of the conflict, in particular the links in the "other steps" and "articles involved" sections. We have waited for three weeks, we can wait one more to give you time to do so.--Flying tiger (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi, I've already given it a once over, but I plan to look deeper into the dispute over the weekend, so I'm sure by Sunday/Monday we'll be ready to start properly. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

• Completion has approached this discussion by the vote. I regret that the current discussion became invalid. --Azukimonaka (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi all, there seems to be a problem here with people going off on different tagents, with very little structure to this mediation, making the page an extension of the article talk page. I would appreciate it if everyone could follow my lead with this or the dispute isn't going to get solved. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening statements

Please make an opening statement on the dispute stating the main issues with the article and the major points that you would like to see mediated. It would be good if you could limit this to 250 words. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening statement by Flying tiger

Hi,

I personally object to user:Azukimonaka's deletion of three points I added to the article .

• 1)The first point is a section on the origins of eugenism in Japan, which was based on Jennifer Robertson's article]. Following his habit, user:Azukimonaka deleted ALL the section, arguing that I "extract only a convenient place from the source to your insistence". ]

• 2) The second one, is a simple and clear reference to Herbert Bix's Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan: «One of the last eugenic measure of the Shōwa regime was taken by the Higashikuni government. On 19 August, 1945, the Home Ministry ordered local government offices to establish a prostitution service for allied soldiers to preserve the "purity" of the "Japanese race". The official declaration stated that : «Through the sacrifice of thousands of "Okichis" of the Shōwa era, we shall construct a dike to hold back the mad frenzy of the occupation troops and cultivate and preserve the purity of our race long into the future...» Herbert Bix, Hirohito and the making of modern Japan, 2001, p. 538, citing Kinkabara Samon and Takemae Eiji, Showashi : kokumin non naka no haran to gekido no hanseiki-zohoban, 1989, p.244 ». User:Azukimonaka, although he did not read the book, accuse me of "falsifying the source" ].
• 3) The third point is the section about the deletion of the Leprosy Laws]. I argue that those law should be included because some japanese scientists believed the body constitution vulnerable to the disease was inheritable and thius, proceded to sterilization as soon as 1915. ]

Finally, I object to Azukimonaka's personal attacks. For two months, this user is launching against me unjustified personal attacks ], ], attributing to me everything he doesn't like in the history of the articles. As you see, User:ZayZayEM and User:Saintjust even took my defense on this. Even, when I agree to his requests, this user keeps deleting... ] --Flying tiger (talk) 14:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening statement by ZayZayEM

Please also see my original "additional issues" listed here. (1-6)

I feel the best way for this article to proceed in a neutral manner is to remove the ambigious "Showa" period limitation. As an encyclopedia of all knowledge, Misplaced Pages should aim to have comprehensive coverage of eugenic technology, practices and social issues in Japan (and the world).

Secondly it needs some English language sources.

User:Azukimonaka has occasionally brought up some interesting points, but for the most part has been a disruptive and insulting editor. He has shown an inability to express himself with even a basic command of the English language. This has led to practically illegible text being added to articles, and discussions that lead nowhere fast.

User Azukimonaka has an axe to grind about issues of Japanese Imperialism and resorts to edit warring, flaming, insults and claims of conspiracies and/or falsification of sources in an attempt to get his way.

This user has a inability to understand core concepts of wikipedia, such as verifibility not truth and wikipedia is not a soapbox.

However, User:Flying Tiger might take note of the Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox rule too. This article appears to focus overtly on military ties to eugenic movements, and attempts to directly relate the issue to war-efforts. User:Azukimonaka has clearly demonstrated that the Imperial Army was predominantly opposed to or uninvolved in eugenics.

Things that need mediated:

• Retitling of article
• Origins of Eugenics in Japan (Germany?)
• Motivations of Eugenics in Japan (military? expansionism? political? racial? public health?)
• Whether Leprosy Laws can be considered eugenic.
• Whether Japanese sex-bars for US military during occupation were motivated (in part?) by eugenics.
• Contrast/similarities with Nazi Eugenics
• Contrast/similarities with Eugenics in the U.S.

--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening statement by Azukimonaka

• It apologizes for having made you revolted with my poor English. However, the knowledge of a Japanese history of Flying-Tyger was poor as well as my English knowledge. (Flying-Tyger doesn't know the history of Japan in detail because he cannot understand Japanese. )
• I thought that this article was an article on "Human-right violation based on eugenics by the Ministry of Health and Welfare". However, it was only a gossip and an ear duster in World War II that was written in this article. If the fact of a Japanese history is enumerated, I do not have dissatisfaction.
• Flying-Tyger falsifies the source. For instance, "And to protect the life and health of the mother as well" was deleted as for "The purposes of this law are to prevent the birth of inferior descendants from the eugenic point of view and and to protect the life and health of the mother as well". Therefore, I said, "Extract only a convenient place from the source to your insistence". And, I keep questioning Flying-Tyger on the deleted reason. ]
• the content of the instruction August 19 that Flying-Tyger wrote is completely different from the announcement of Japanese Government.

外国軍駐屯地における慰安施設の設置に関する内務省警保局長通牒(無電)

1945/08/18
外国軍駐屯地に於ては別記要領に依り之が慰安施設等設備の要あるも本件取扱に付ては極めて慎重を要するに付特に左記事項留意の上遺憾なきを期せられ度.
1.外国軍の駐屯地及時季は目下全く予想し得ざるところなれば必ず貴県に駐屯するが如き感を懐き一般に動揺を来さしむ如きなかるべきこと.
2.駐屯する場合は急速に開設を要するものなるに付内部的には予め手筈を定め置くこととし外部には絶対に之を漏洩せざること.
3.本件実施に当りて日本人の保護を趣旨とするものなることを理解せしめ地方民をして誤解を生じせしめざること.

(別記)
外国駐屯軍慰安施設等整備要綱
1. 営業行為は一定の区域を限定して従来の取締標準にかかわらずこれを許可するものとす.
2. 前項の区域は警察署長に於いて之を設定するものとし,日本人の施設利用は之を禁ずるものとす.
3. 警察署長は左の営業については積極的に指導を行い設備の急速充実を図るものとする.
性的慰安施設
飲食施設
娯楽場
4. 営業に必要な婦女子は,芸妓,公私娼妓,女給,酌婦,常習密売淫犯者を優先的に之を充足するものとする.

吉川春子『従軍慰安婦 新資料による国会論戦』あゆみ出版1997/11/01 pp.230

• Leprosy Laws is a law to keep a patient in isolation to prevent the epidemic. Neither Eugenics nor sterilization are related. He never reacts to my persuasion though I am explaining by using Timeline.

• • 1907, Leprosy Prevention Laws (癩予防ニ関スル件) purpose was to isolate wandering Leprosy patients. (癩患者ニシテ療養ノ途ヲ有セス且救護者ナキモノハ行政官癩ニ於テ命令ノ定ムル所ニ従ヒ療養所ニ入ラシメ之ヲ救護スベシ)
  • 1931, To isolate all Leprosy patients, Leprosy Prevention Laws　(癩予防法) was approved. (行政官癩ハ癩予防上必要ト認ムル トキハ命令ノ定ムル所ニ従ヒ癩患者ニシテ病毒傅播ノ虞アルモノヲ国立癩療養所又ハ第4条ノ 規定ニ依リ設置スル療養所ニ入所セシムルベシ)
  • 1940, The Diet passes The National Eugenic Law(国民優性法). The patient was not sterilized because Leprosy had been thought to be an epidemic. (This law is a law to remove an inferior inheritance. )
  • 1948, Leprosy and Haemophilia were compulsorily sterilized by Eugenic Protection Law.
  • 1953, Leprosy Prevention Laws (らい予防法) was approved. 　The patient was compulsorily isolated.

Start

Firstly can I ask that everyone keeps their cool here and maintains a civil attitude throughout. I get the feeling here that the major problem with the article is that it places too much emphasis on military ties. Would it be a good idea to cut this back a little, and then add more on expansionism, political, racial and public health aspects? ZayZayEM brings up some interesting points here;

1. Origins of Eugenics in Japan (Germany?)
2. Motivations of Eugenics in Japan (military? expansionism? political? racial? public health?)
3. Whether Leprosy Laws can be considered eugenic.
4. Whether Japanese sex-bars for US military during occupation were motivated (in part?) by eugenics.
5. Contrast/similarities with Nazi Eugenics
6. Contrast/similarities with Eugenics in the U.S

• Could sources be found that help to explain each of these topics so they can be expanded neutrally within the article? Ryan Postlethwaite 17:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As you read above, one of the main cause of the war edit is precisely that some of the sources proposed on points 1 to 4, such as excerpts from Mrs. Robertson's article and Bix's book are not accepted by user:Azukimonaka. This is why we need a mediator...

For the Leprosy laws. I refer you here to Michio Miyasaka's article which refer to the fact that leprologist Ogasawara, denounced as a traitor to the nation in 1941, tried to demonstrate in 1931 that leprosy was not inheritable and argued against the isolation-sterilization policy. According to Miyasaka, «some japanese leprologists insisted that the body constitution vulnerable to the disease was inheritable» and «sterilization of leprosy patients was also advocated and performed by Japanese leprologists since 1915»

For the «military ties», I must remind again that the article was written exclusively around that topic by the first editors. We discovered afterwards that eugenism was still in force well beyond the Greater East Asia War, so nobody has ever objected to the fact that the article needs expansion. --Flying tiger 20:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case, to begin I need to ask user:Azukimonaka a question. Why don't you think the sources are acceptable? Ryan Postlethwaite 21:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Leprosy laws is an official law of Japanese Government. We can read Leprosy laws. The law is a law to accommodate the Leprosy patient. Sterilization is not being written at all. The sterilization of Leprosy was executed by Eugenic Protection Law in 1948. Details of Leprosy laws are written.

• • 1907, Leprosy Prevention Laws (癩予防ニ関スル件) purpose was to isolate wandering Leprosy patients. (癩患者ニシテ療養ノ途ヲ有セス且救護者ナキモノハ行政官癩ニ於テ命令ノ定ムル所ニ従ヒ療養所ニ入ラシメ之ヲ救護スベシ)
  • 1931, To isolate all Leprosy patients, Leprosy Prevention Laws　(癩予防法) was approved. (行政官癩ハ癩予防上必要ト認ムル トキハ命令ノ定ムル所ニ従ヒ癩患者ニシテ病毒傅播ノ虞アルモノヲ国立癩療養所又ハ第4条ノ 規定ニ依リ設置スル療養所ニ入所セシムルベシ)
  • 1940, The Diet passes The National Eugenic Law(国民優性法). The patient was not sterilized because Leprosy had been thought to be an epidemic. (This law is a law to remove an inferior inheritance. )
  • 1948, Leprosy and Haemophilia were compulsorily sterilized by Eugenic Protection Law.
  • 1953, Leprosy Prevention Laws (らい予防法) was approved. 　The patient was compulsorily isolated.

Because the infection power of Leprosy was low, Ogasawara Noboru (小笠原 登) was appealed to abolish compulsory purchase.(『癩の極悪性の本質について』Ogasawara issue in 1932) Ogawasara criticized only isolation though Flying Tiger was insisted isolation-sterilization policy. (Sterilization is not being executed by the nation in 1931. )

Flying Tiger is not detailed to the history of Japan. And, he doesn't understand Japanese. Therefore, he often insists on the history of inaccurate Japan. He keeps disregarding me though I keep pointing out his mistake. I want him to read an official law of Japanese Government. --Azukimonaka 21:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I please remind Azukimonaka, this article is not about the laws. The laws are important, but the actions of individuals, or indeed governments are not always limited by laws. If a reliable reference is provided that suggests Japanese health officials (or whoever) sterilised lepers with eugenic motivation, it is not shown to be false because that would have been breaking the law.--ZayZayEM 00:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I am answering only "For the Leprosy laws" of Flying Tyger. It is not an answer to this article. Perhaps, Flying-Tyger is confused. The director in the Leprosy special hospital of Tokyo Mitsuda Kensuke (光田 健輔) performed the sterilization operation to the patient by his belief in 1915. Because Japanese Government had not permitted compulsory sterilization, he requested the patient to agree to the surgical sterilization. --Azukimonaka 20:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Leprosy laws is a law. What explanation of Eugenics does the law do? I read Leprosy laws.

(This is not long sentences. ) However, the law completely explained neither sterilization nor the inheritance. --Azukimonaka (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• User:Azukimonaka, who advertise himself as a manga fan not an historian, refers indeed a lot to his knowledge and to other editor's presumed "ignorance" and "confusion". He is however unable to read and understand clear english sources and does not provide himself much.

• Michio Miyasaka could not be clearer : "Another feature of the paternalism in Japanese leprology was found in their conservatism. Japanese leprologists kept their ears closed not only to the voice of patients, but to evidence-based arguments of the medical profession. There were a few Japanese leprologists such as Noburo Ogasawara who argued against the isolation-sterilization policy. His argument was denounced by the majority of leprologists from political rather than medical standpoint. Ogasawara was called a traitor to the nation at 15th conference of the Japanese Association of Leprology in 1941...."

and "Even assuming that there were patients such body constitution, it does not justify the sterilization of patients who had been insufficiently informed and given no other choice than vasectomy, abortion or infanticide to prevent their children to be infected from the bacillus."

• He did not answer the mediator's question for his deletion of Jennifer Robertson's excerpts I added on the origins section, but for the Bix excerpt, he is, for more than two months, confusing a government announcement with a public declaration made on the Imperial Plaza at the inauguration of the Recreation and Amusement Associations. He needs to understand a basic principle which is called delegation of executive powers in state structure = Governement + Home ministry + RAA . --Flying tiger (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be good to hear exactly the reasons why Azukimonaka believes Flying tigers additons should not be in the article. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• • If it has the ability to understand the history knowledge of the high school student level of Japan and native's Japanese, the mistake of Flying-Tyger can be easily pointed out. There is no special history knowledge needing when discussing it with him.

Flying-Tyger is not interested in information on accurate Japan as well as a lot of Koreans. (To lower the reputation of Japan, and to raise the reputation of Korea, they edit it.)However, We can do some agreement.

1. The sterilization of Leprosy in Japan is not being promoted by a Japanese army. A part of sanatorium forced sterilization on the patient as a condition of the marriage.
2. Leprosy of Japan is not related to Eugenics in Showa Japan. (Even as for the source of Flying-Tyger, the relation between "Leprosy policy of Japan" and Eugenic is not being written either. ）

I think that Eugenics and Leprosy are another topics. Therefore, I should delete "Leprosy" that Flying-Tyger added.

The Leprosy Prevention laws of 1907, 1931 and 1953, the last one only repealed in 1996, permitted the segregation of patients in sanitarium where forced abortions and sterilization were common and authorized punishmement of patients "disturbing peace". Under the colonial Korean Leprosy prevention ordinance, Korean patients were also sujected to hard labor.

"Korean patients were also sujected to hard labor." is a peculiar opinion to Anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea. It doesn't relate to Eugenics at all.　--Azukimonaka (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

User:Azukimonaka, please answer this question. Do not bring in any extra points. We will deal with all concerns in due time, including FlyingTiger's alleged Korean/Japanese bias, and whether Leprosy topics should be included etc.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC) The question:

Why don't you think the sources are acceptable?

The sources in question are:

1. Michio Miyasaka on Leprosy laws being motivated by eugenics, or at least being part of "(isolation-)sterilization policy".

• • I am not denying the source. I am criticizing the misquotation in the source. For instance, when Flying-Tyger quoted the thesis of Michio Miyasaka, he made Eugenic Protection Law mixed with Leprosy laws, and changed to the content according to his political insistence.

1. Herbet Bix on the post-war use of prostitutes to preserve national purity.

• • I cannot confirm Flying-Tyger accurately quoted the source of Herbet Bix. However, I was able to see the original of the law on August 17. The law on August 17 that Japanese Government had promulgated was not corresponding to the insistence on Flying-Tyger at all.
  • And, Herbet Bix doesn't insist Eugenics on Recreation and Amusement Association.
  • Therefore, I think that I should delete this inaccurate information.

1. Jennifer Roberts on the origins of modern eugenics in Japan, used in the lead of the article.

• • The quotation of Flying-Tyger was very random work though her thesis was a wonderful content.
  • Jennifer is being written. "The (non-feminist) gynocentric, maternalist bent of these early eugenics associations was reflected in the postwar Eugenic Protection Law of 1948"　To relate a Japanese empire to Eugenics, Flying-Tyger changed her thesis though she was writing after World War II.

I am requesting the fact to be written accurately. I am not denying Eugenics that the Ministry of Health and Welfare in Japan executed after World War II.

By the way, I also have the question.

this is a thesis of Robertson that Flying-Tyger quoted.

　Marriages between Koreans and Japanese were discouraged. In 1942, a survey report argued that "the Korean laborers brought to Japan, where they have established permanent residency, are of the lower classes and therefore of inferior constitution...By fathering children with Japanese women, these men could lower the caliber of the Yamato minzoku".

Why is the Japanese who rejected the marriage with the Korean related to eugenics?

--Azukimonaka (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• User:Azukimonaka claims he wants «the facts to be written acurately». He however wrote this clumsy declaration : «Flying-Tyger is not interested in information on accurate Japan as well as a lot of Koreans. (To lower the reputation of Japan, and to raise the reputation of Korea, they edit it.)»

• I already wrote I am not Korean (and erratic Azukimonaka does not remember it or does he want to?) ] I do not have to be Korean to consider this absolutely offensive for this people. I would not dare to write «A lot of Japanese are right-wing negationnists» cause I know it is false.

• On the content, he is wrong once again. User:Azukimonaka should leave the fairy tales of manga and learn to analyse history in a rational way.

• • Miyasaka refers explicitly to the belief of a majority of japanese scientists who thought that the body constitution of lepers was inheritable and thus promoted sterilization for eugenics goals.

• • For his deletion of Bix, he is confusing a governement announcement with a public declaration of the RAA as he doesn't understand state structure.

• • For Robertson, my text was quoted directly from her article. ] Instead of adding excerpts he wanted, Azukimonaka deleted ALL my edit. ] As I explained earlier, this is the typical destructive way of doing of this user : ]

• • The excerpt :

    The Leprosy Prevention laws of 1907, 1931 and 1953, the last one only repealed in 1996, permitted the segregation of patients in sanitarium where forced abortions and sterilization (+) were common and authorized punishmement of patients "disturbing peace".

    , is perfectly right. One only needs to add «even if the laws did not refer to it» after «sterilization» (+) as the strilization was mostly promoted by policies before 1948.

• Finally, one does not need to be a biologist to understand that if some Japanese institutions discouraged marriage between «inferior» Koreans and Japanese, it is because they did not want their genes being mixed to «lower» their «race» and thus were pursuing an eugenic policy....--Flying tiger (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• • I am not interested in the abuse.
  • As for Flying-Tyger, these knowledge is insufficient to put it concretely.

• • 1. Timeline of Japanese history. (He is confused and understands the history of Japan from 1900 to 1950. )
  • 2. History of welfare policy of Japan (He cannot consider the law enforced in Japan quite. )
  • 3. Basic knowledge of Japanese history　(For instance, Eugenic marriage counseling center has the organization that Ngai Hisomu founded in 1933 and the organization that the Ministry of Health and Welfare founded in 1941. He confuses this two, and has inserted his imagination. )
  • The fault of Flying Tiger cannot understand Japanese, and is obstinacy that doesn't admit a Japanese source. Because he doesn't understand Japanese, his Japanese knowledge is inferior to my Japanese knowledge.

• • • Eugenics appears twice in the Miyasaka thesis.　
    • 1. The vasectomy and abortion of leprosy patients were legalized by Eugenic Protection Law (Yusei Hogo Hou) in 1948.
    • 2. 1948 The vasectomy and abortion of leprosy patients were legalized by Eugenic Protection Law (Yusei Hogo Hou).
    • Because this is a personal insistence on Flying-Tyger, I reject it. Rewrite it again.

(Comments added AZUKIMONAKA on 22 December)

Flying-Tyger, The opinion is based on your personal feelings. Did Robertson insist, "The Japanese who refused the marriage with the Korean is Eugenics ideologist"?

And, there is another one question.

The Korea under Japanese rule Leprosy prevention ordinance, Korean patients were also sujected to hard labor

Why is compulsory labor of Korean patients included in Eugenics?

Finally, we might not be able to agree. I am writing the article on Eugenics as a history of medicine.　Therefore, I am attaching importance to an official document and the law of Japanese Government. And, I do not make them confused. --Azukimonaka (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• 1)Thank you to Azukimonaka for referring to my "personal feelings". This proves that either he has not read Robertson's article or that he did not understood it... On page 203 of her article, Robertson describes the work of the Eugenic marriage counseling centers!!!! She then reproduces the text of a photo fron a pamphlet made by those centers :«Only people can accomplish the construction of Greater East Asia. Superior people are greatly needed for our future. There is one condition that must be fulfilled in order to increase the number of superior people and that is the promotion and encouragement of marriage(...)However important it is to increase the population, the birth of physically weak and mentally impaired will harm the Kokutai.» She then continues, on page 205, always on the work of Eugenic centers : «Center staff also attempted to discourage marriage between Japanese women and Korean men who had been recruited from the peninsula as laborers following its annexation by Japan in 1910.» She ten cites the 1942 survey report : «the Korean laborers brought to Japan, where they have established permanent residency, are of the lower classes and therefore of inferior constitution... By fathering children with Japanese women, these men could lower the caliber of the Yamato minzoku.»

So, yes, Robertson refers directly to eugenic policy of Eugenic centers... If Azukimonaka is «attaching importance to official documents» as he wrote, he should learn to understand what the sources tell first before launching useless edit wars....

• 2) On hard labor ordered by the Leprosy prevention ordinance for Korean patients, I agree this is NOT directly related to eugenism and I would not start an edit war on it. But as it it is true and it is an interesting fact related to leprosy, I do not see why it would be harmul for readers to let it in the text. --Flying tiger (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Because Flying-Tyger was able to understand his own mistake, I was able to take tiredness only a little. --Azukimonaka (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving on

I'm sorry for the lack of time I have spent on this, I can only put it down to RL commitments, but let's move swiftly on with it now and try and come to a consensus. I have to say that the article should probably have some form of origin section - when did Eugenics first start in Japan? The inclusion of leprosy in this article is interesting, but would the full context be better served in its own section? The sources show that eugenics has been used to attempt to remove leprosy, and it could be an interesting example to use to better understand the context. I'd also suggest looking at the methods used in Eugenics in Japan in a seperate section, which again would likely improve the overall understandability of the article. The main issues around this dispute seem to revolve around rather fine details in the article. It may be better to firstly concentrate on improving the wider context of the article before we look into deeper issues. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

«Rather fine details»...you could not be more right. In fact, there should never had been an edit war on this article. By a simple reading of the sources, you understood that «eugenics has been used to attemp to remove leprosy», to quote your words, however, user:Azukimonaka is still disputing this fact... The same is true of the two other points about Bix and Robertson. How can an edit war been solved if one side is unable to understand the sources ? How can we «move on» to wider context?--Flying tiger (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Azukimonaka disputes the fact per se, I think he disagree's with its inclusion in this particular article. The sources I've read do show that there has been an attempt to remove leprosy using Eugenics so it may be a good idea to simply state this point, have a source for it and then move on, with little elaboration. A section would be nice on it, but if we can't get agreement, then that will have to do. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is simple.

The Leprosy Prevention laws is a law to isolate the Leprosy patient. Neither eugenics nor sterilization are related to this law.

Leprosy became the target of sterilization by Eugenic Protection Law in 1948.

"Under the colonial Korean Leprosy prevention ordinance, Korean patients were also sujected to hard labor"　This is a topic that not is related to eugenics and at all. --Azukimonaka (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You state that Leprosy became the targer of sterilization by Eugenic Protection Law in 1948, could this section be added into the article? It needn't be a long section, but I brief statement would be helpful. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I can add it. However, the law in 1948 has not limited the target to Leprosy.　(This is an original of the law adopted in Japan. ) However, please delete the part without Eugenics and the relation. For instance, leprosy prevention law is not related to Eugenics at all.

I am not denying Eugenics of Japan. I am explaining that Eugenics of Japan was promoted by Eugenic Protection Law in 1948. --Azukimonaka (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Azukimonaka choose once again to omit the fact that Robertson and Miyasaka's articles clearly indicates that eugenic policies were implemented in Japan well before the law of 1948...--Flying tiger (talk) 15:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, when I try to understand the meaning of what he wrote on 9 December : # The sterilization of Leprosy in Japan is not being promoted by a Japanese army. A part of sanatorium forced sterilization on the patient as a condition of the marriage. Leprosy of Japan is not related to Eugenics in Showa Japan. (Even as for the source of Flying-Tyger, the relation between "Leprosy policy of Japan" and Eugenic is not being written either. ）. I think that Eugenics and Leprosy are another topics. Therefore, I should delete "Leprosy" that Flying-Tyger added.

and on 22 December : Eugenics appears twice in the Miyasaka thesis. 1. The vasectomy and abortion of leprosy patients were legalized by Eugenic Protection Law (Yusei Hogo Hou) in 1948. 2. 1948 The vasectomy and abortion of leprosy patients were legalized by Eugenic Protection Law (Yusei Hogo Hou). Because this is a personal insistence on Flying-Tyger, I reject it. Rewrite it again.''

it looks as if he is simply disputing the fact that there were eugenic policies related to leprosy apart from the 1948 law... For an origins section, I already began one, ], but it was simply deleted by the same user without clear explanation. ] --Flying tiger (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The patchwork of the gossip item that Flying tiger made is denied by Historiography of legitimate Japan. For instance...

Marriages between Koreans and Japanese were discouraged. In 1942, a survey report argued that "the Korean laborers brought to Japan, where they have established permanent residency, are of the lower classes and therefore of inferior constitution...By fathering children with Japanese women, these men could lower the caliber of the Yamato minzoku"

This is a topic of not eugenics but Xenophobia or nationalism. (Moreover, This episode doesn't have evidence. Therefore, credibility is low. And, Japanese value the incomes more than Korean's gene according to this explanation.)

Japanese Government promoted Ethnocide of Korea, and a Korean king married the princess in Japan.

Please do a concrete rebuttal if you cannot consent. I introduce the statute book of Japan and the thesis of eugenists in Japan for you. --Azukimonaka (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You introduce nothing at all. If you were able to understand english properly, you had read and understand Jennifer Robertson,s article that you qualified earlier as "wonderful" and which is on japanese eugenism. The above text is not a patchwork. Those are the exact sentences of Robertson.

There should never had been an edit war on this article. You are the only user with which I ever had problem because 1) you do not know well Japan history in the first half of 20th century and WWII and 2) you can not read english and understand english texts. Therefore, you see conspiration against Japan everywhere when there is none.

It is an endless discussion about each and every source which any other user would not dispute. This article could have been useful to a lot of users. Instead, it is stalled for two months simply because of your paranoia. I strongly consider quiting this useless mediation process. --Flying tiger (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I can answer an academic question. However, your Hwabyeong cannot be done. You have to　calm down, and question again. --Azukimonaka (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you prove you can not "answer academic questions" when confronted with rational argument and can only resort to childish insults... --Flying tiger (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Leprosy

Can we try and come to a conclusion for how Eugenics has been used to eliminate Leprosy? Sources show that it has been used, so can we try and plan exactly what needs to be said about it? I section would be a good idea, talking about when it has actually been used, and who initiated it. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)