Talk:Oriental (word): Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Will Nesbitt
imported>Robert W King
Line 16: Line 16:


I left this from an old Wikipedia article and culled it from some sources that I dug up.  It sort of evolved into a defense of the term oriental because of a perceived (by me) assault on the term for political reasons on Wikipedia. I'm open for discussion and glad to help edit. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 09:37, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
I left this from an old Wikipedia article and culled it from some sources that I dug up.  It sort of evolved into a defense of the term oriental because of a perceived (by me) assault on the term for political reasons on Wikipedia. I'm open for discussion and glad to help edit. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 09:37, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
::I don't think there's any problem of that here, so I'll have to agree with a notion John might have been getting at--there's no point/reason for it, unless you can justify otherwise.--[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 09:56, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 08:56, 23 June 2007


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 John Stephenson 05:08, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

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





Reasons for this article?

As it stands, this article sourced from Wikipedia and modified by Will Nesbitt seems to be defending the use of the term 'Oriental'. Recommend some modifications. John Stephenson 05:11, 22 June 2007 (CDT)


I left this from an old Wikipedia article and culled it from some sources that I dug up. It sort of evolved into a defense of the term oriental because of a perceived (by me) assault on the term for political reasons on Wikipedia. I'm open for discussion and glad to help edit. Will Nesbitt 09:37, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't think there's any problem of that here, so I'll have to agree with a notion John might have been getting at--there's no point/reason for it, unless you can justify otherwise.--Robert W King 09:56, 23 June 2007 (CDT)