Talk:Oriental (word)

Oriental (word)

Current talk page

Archive 1

Article Checklist for "Oriental (word)"

Workgroup category or categories	Linguistics Workgroup, Geography Workgroup, Sociology Workgroup [Editors asked to check categories]
Article status	Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article?	Yes
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	Larry Sanger 02:36, 27 July 2007 (CDT); Russell Potter 10:10, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

This article talk page is now under dispute watch

See CZ:Dispute Watch. You're going to have to start using the {{prop}} template in the way that page describes. We're testing out a dispute resolution idea, but I'm taking the test seriously. From now on, disputation on this page must be on-topic, and on-topic means (1) aimed at a specific proposition, (2) the proposition must concern the wording of the text, and (3) engaging in a dispute, as opposed to how to characterize the dispute, is off-topic. Call it the Anti-Bloviation Rule!  :-) --Larry Sanger 07:23, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

"For most Asians"

Proposition: "For most Asians," or some other means of qualification, should be added to "While "I ordered oriental rice" is acceptable language, "I handed my coat to an oriental woman" is not."

This article is on dispute watch. This requires that all argumentation directly concern clearly-stated propositions about article wording.

I have made this change. The reason is straightforward. As Will has amply demonstrated, not everyone agrees with the claim in question. Hence, our Neutrality Policy demands that we qualify the claim somehow. This is perfectly straightforward. I request that if you, Richard, want to change it back, you address this first. --Larry Sanger 03:20, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

I would suggest this read "For most people", because the controversy does not fall along racial lines. Edward Said, myself and Richard Jensen, for example, are not Orientals. Will Nesbitt 14:14, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Depends upon what it meant. Are we looking at the controversy universally, or subjectively? The first sentence of this paragraph suggests to me that it refers to what Asians themselves feel about these terms, self-referentially and when used by others. If that is the case, "for most people" cannot be used, because what non-Asians think would be irrelevant in this instance. Aleta Curry 17:48, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Rumor or Fact?

Proposition: Delete "In the 1970s the Ford administration banned the word (as applied to people) from federal government usage. " unless this statement can be sourced.

This article is on dispute watch. This requires that all argumentation directly concern clearly-stated propositions about article wording.

This is not only unsourced, it is factually wrong. I can point to Fair Housing Documents and EOE documents in use today which use this term to describe people. Will Nesbitt 07:33, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Value Judgment / Bias

Proposition: Remove/reword this sentence "Today, unquestionably, in educated and polite company, one very rarely hears the word applied to people." on the basis that it is full of absolutes (which can be challenged on their own merits) and draws a line of controversy and argumentation where there is none.

This article is on dispute watch. This requires that all argumentation directly concern clearly-stated propositions about article wording.

CZ editors of East Asian ancestry and with ties to Oriental communities have already demonstrated that there is no great controversy associated with this word. This sentence stakes out an impossibly aggressive stance against the usage of Oriental which is neither supported anecdotally or by usage references. Furthermore, the sentence implies that those who do not agree with the editor's interpretation of the language are both impolite and uneducated.

It is true that some people find this word offensive in some usages, but this is the case with virtually every racial, regional, cultural and nationalistic label in the English language. Most readers know this already, and when we stake out this sort of grounds we risk alienated many fair-minded people. Will Nesbitt 07:42, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

"CZ editors of East Asian ancestry and with ties to Oriental communities have already demonstrated that there is no great controversy associated with this word." Will, I don't see that at all, and you have left out an important distinction, which is that where CZ editors have acknowledged usage of the word, they have almost always qualified that that is where oriental is applied historically, or to things rather than to people. The rest of your post just muddies the waters.

Aleta Curry 18:01, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Missing Source

Proposition: Source or remove following sentence: "However "oriental medicine" is somewhat more controversial."

This article is on dispute watch. This requires that all argumentation directly concern clearly-stated propositions about article wording.

The source is a dead link. The word is still commonly used by practitioners of Oriental medicine (as can be documented in any metropolitan Yellow Pages). This sentence may refer to legistlation which was passed a few years ago about the use of the phrase "Oriental Medicine". If I recall correctly, that phrasing was banned from state documents, but reality didn't comply with this edict. The word never was eradicated from California websites and documents after the complaints of a goodly number of practitioners. Will Nesbitt 07:48, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Editorial claim unsupported by any source

Proposition: This sentence: "Many Asian gangs such as the OPB, Oriental Playboys, and the ORB Oriental Rutheless Boys, refer to themselves as oriental to stress they are outside social norms" should read: "Many Asian gangs such as the OPB, Oriental Playboys, and the ORB Oriental Rutheless Boys, refer to themselves as oriental."

This article is on dispute watch. This requires that all argumentation directly concern clearly-stated propositions about article wording.

This sentence ascribes a motive where no evidence of motive exists. It would be almost as silly to assume that the Shriners and the Oriental Food Association use the word to stress they are outside societal norms. The fact that this term is broadly used by members within and without polite society is an indicator that there is no large measure of controversy associated with the word. Will Nesbitt 07:53, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Grammatical and Organizational Concerns

Proposition: This phrase under "Derivation" is not a complete sentence: "Scholars in the field belong to the The American Oriental Society, founded in 1842." This sentence is part of a paragraph or two about "Usage" and has nothing to do with the header "Derivation".

This article is on dispute watch. This requires that all argumentation directly concern clearly-stated propositions about article wording.

I would make this change myself, but I am trying to work through this new system. Will Nesbitt 07:56, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Material should be sourced and accurate

Proposition: Replace unsourced and vague statement "In the 1960s, Asian Americans began protesting the term as applied to people as insulting;" with a more accurate and source statement such as: "'The Oriental Student Union (OSU) at Seattle Central Community College (SCCC) was founded in 1970. It modeled itself after the campus Black Student Union (BSU), which during the 1968-9 school year had used direct action protests to demand black studies and the hiring of black administrators and faculty.' The Oriental Student Union was instrumental in bringing awareness to the Asian American community and at the forefront of a movement to change the American English lexicon.

This article is on dispute watch. This requires that all argumentation directly concern clearly-stated propositions about article wording.

This second sentence contains a direct quote from the Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project, a great resource for information about the nexus of the "Asian rights" movement. Will Nesbitt 08:13, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Proposition: Remove, source or rewrite this paragraph: "The adjective and substantive forms are now widely considered offensive ... snip ... Alan Hu writes, 'The upshot is to use whatever word you feel most comfortable with, or that makes your listeners most comfortable, but don't be surprised if someone takes offense.'" on the grounds that this is an editorial and not a fact.

This article is on dispute watch. This requires that all argumentation directly concern clearly-stated propositions about article wording.

Firstly and mostly, this paragraph describes an editorial opinion and not a fact. Secondly, that opinion is a disputed opinion. Thirdly, it is sourced by some guy with a website. Are websites valid sources for information? Will Nesbitt 08:19, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Guilty by Association

Proposition: The reference for this statement is not scholarly and gives the impression of insult: "While the term "Oriental" is an example of Eurocentrism some endorse Eurocentrism and use the term deliberately." This is sourced to a self-described White Supremacist.

This article is on dispute watch. This requires that all argumentation directly concern clearly-stated propositions about article wording.

This is a poorly executed form of an ad hominem attack. Nevermind the fact that some editor knowingly referenced an internet forum, the issue that reeks of improper behavior is that the editor in question elected to reference Walter Nowotny a self-described White Supremacist on a "Pro-White Forum". I

As a point of fact, it can be assumed that almost everyone who participates in CZ agrees with Walter Nowotny on a good many subjects. For example, we all agree that the sky is blue and that the Moon is not made out of green cheese. That does not imply an association with, or an endorsement of Mr. Nowotny's racial politics. To choose such a reference is demeaning and insulting to those who do not abide by the belief that Eurocentrism is a plague to the English language.

The appropriateness, or inappropriateness of Eurocentrism is a debate in and of itself and should be avoided in this article if at all possible. I would certainly expect and hope that the Chinese language is Sinocentric and that the Zulu language is Afrocentric. It is no surprise that the English language is Eurocentric.

I don't make these statements to debate tangential issues. Instead, I make these statement to illustrate that it is possible for reasonable people to think there is nothing the matter with Eurocentrism and at the same time reject the White Power Movement. Will Nesbitt 08:34, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Unfair representation of the minority position?

Proposition: How can we mention the Washington State Legislature banned the word Oriental without mentioning that 49 other states (including Hawaii) and no other American territories have made this move? I can think of no other issue where one state is more important than 49 other states and all US territories.

This article is on dispute watch. This requires that all argumentation directly concern clearly-stated propositions about article wording.

Is it a coincidence that the Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project is based in the state of Washington and that this is the only state to pass such a law? Is not the fact that this law was only adopted on the home-turf of an activist group proof that this is a fringe movement rather than the mainstream of the American English language? Will Nesbitt 08:41, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Facts, not editorials

Proposition: The last paragraph of this article need to be reworded. In its current form, it stakes out an editorial position which is not supported by facts and has logical flaws: Geographical terms are not controversial when used for people and places, e.g., South Asia, East Asia, and South-East Asia. Although Far Eastern is considered less offensive than Oriental, East Asian is preferred because this term is significantly less Eurocentric. Other alternative terms include Asia and the Pacific or the Pacific Rim or the Pacific Basin. Terms such as these may also be preferred because they do not collapse East and South-east Asian peoples into the same group.

This article is on dispute watch. This requires that all argumentation directly concern clearly-stated propositions about article wording.

The first sentence says "is considered less offensive" which makes clear an editorial position which I do not support. A better phrasing might be: "Geographical terms such as South Asia, East Asia, and South-East Asia are employed by those who prefer alternative terminology."

This sentence doesn't seem to make logical sense. "Terms such as these may also be preferred because they do not collapse East and South-east Asian peoples into the same group." This is because one of the criticisms of the term Oriental is that it is too vague and not specific enough: i.e. Korean or Japanese, not Oriental. But there is clearly a need for a term which describes things related to the Orient, so it seems illogical to replace one perfectly good word with three hyphenated words. Perhaps it would make sense to used latitudinal and longitudinal notation to be more precise while avoiding any insensitive terms? The only problem with this system is that the Greenwich Meridian is a clear example of Eurocentrism. I'm not trying to be disingenuous, I'm trying to illustrate that this article would be much more useful and interesting if it left the topic of political sensitivity alone and instead focused on the Orient itself. Will Nesbitt 08:53, 5 August 2007 (CDT)