Talk:Oriental (word)

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.

---

Article moved

Given that the very good new lede for this entry uses the entry word "Orient," I have moved it to Orient and separated out the entry on the adjectival and substantive forms. The discussion will be found there.

PC silliness

Maybe I'm just too insensitive to understand it, but sentences like this one amuse me and leave me baffled:

The Orient is a term that traditionally used in European culture ...

Huh?

Like every other word in the English language, "Orient" was not a word used by European culture. English words are used by English speakers. French words are used by French speakers. Finnic words are used by Finnish speakers, and so on. European is not a language. Much like the word Oriental, European is an adjective describing a conglomeration of diverse cultures and peoples located in a specific part of Eurasia. Traditionally, Orient was not a European word. It was an English word.

In contemporary usage, Orient is still an English word. Although the euro may be currency across Europe, and although English may be spoke around the world, the English language is still ... well ... English. Will Nesbitt 11:14, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Let's say "The "Orient" and its cognates" then -- since French uses "l'Orient," Italian "l'Oriente" and Spanish "el Oriente" -- a similar term is found in nearly all Romance languages (Germanic languages are an exception). Russell Potter 11:25, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Is it now proper to refer to Europeans as "West Eurasians", thereby not lessening the vital distinctions between the cultures of say Holland from Germany or Norway? ;^) Will Nesbitt 12:42, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Almost an outrage

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

The claim that oriental is an insult or derogatory is supported by the works of a narrow group supporting a certain political agenda. Diane Ravitch's work directly addresses the banishment of the term "oriental" and many related terms. Will Nesbitt 09:10, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Whatever you think of the claim that "Oriental" is derogatory, Ravitch's work clearly has a strong political view as well (she's a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institute). But I don't think this claim necessitates expert opinion; if any people feel offended (and references already present make this a clear fact), then the most that Ravitch can claim is that such people shouldn't be offended. If, beyond the broader discussion of such terms by pre-eminent scholars such as Said (and Said's critics), there is a lingering controversy over the term's usage which aligns itself to a degree along political lines, then that can be stated, and the Neutrality policy followed, at the same time. Russell Potter 09:16, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

I would agree that Ravitch has a political perspective as well. (Ravitch by the way was a Clinton political appointee.) Ravitch, Bork and a good many other well-credentialed people hold the opinion that "sensitivity guides" represent a certain political perspective. I will grant that they may well be wrong. I will also concede that a good many people disagree with their point of view. What I will not concede is that their opinion should be deleted, ignored or not represented simply because their opinion "offends" others.

I would agree that it's a good time to step back from this topic. I would find it very helpful and less inflammatory if others would find a way to make their point without ad hoc deletion and by replying to perfectly reasonable counter-points and questions of logic. Will Nesbitt 11:24, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Take a breather

May I suggest that everyone take a step back. We all have the same goal. --Matt Innis (Talk) 10:13, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Misunderstanding

I've removed this quote:

It is a violation of Federal Fair Housing laws to use the word "Oriental" in housing advertisements.

Because it's not indicative that the term is considered a slur. The fact is ALL ethnic and religious descriptors are banned in Fair Housing Laws. For example, one cannot mention any of the following words in a housing advertisement: white, African American, Italian, German, Catholic, etc. None of these words are allowed and none of them are considered slurs. Thus this is not evidence of the word being a slur.

However, the word is used on a document which says, "Negro, Black, Causcasian, Oriental, African American" in the same phrase. These are examples of perfectly acceptable terminologies, which are inappropriate in a housing advertisement. In other words, this is evidence that the word is still in common usage and not considered a slur by many. Will Nesbitt 19:36, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

More evidence of non-pejorative evidence removed

It's not difficult to find or hear the term Oriental in common usage. This is perhaps best evidenced by it's usage on the District of Columbia |official website. The purpose of this document is to establish the racial make-up of contractors who are working for DC gov't. In other words, this is a "sensitivity" document. It's used as a choice alongside: "black, oriental, American Indian, Spanish surname". Are we only going to allow evidence which supports one opinion? Will Nesbitt 19:36, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

no that's not "common usage" -- it's a header in a statistical table. Nice folks don't call other people "orientals" to their face. Richard Jensen 20:02, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

the problem with the word is that for several decades now when talking about real people it's used as an insult, especially by conservatiuves who like to flaunt it in the name of free speech. Even Bork I suspect would not use it in ordinary conversation. CZ should not cater to this sort of insult. Richard Jensen 20:16, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

I dispute this. I not only dispute this, but I have and can dispute this with nearly countless sources. I don't deny that some people agree with you. I just don't think everyone agrees with you. Furthermore, I think you're confusing your opinions with facts. The fact is a good many orientals (my wife included) refer to themselves conversationally as orientals. Can you please find another way to present your case other than by deletion? Is this a politically correctness resource? Will Nesbitt 21:48, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

And with a bit less emotion, "oriental" is insulting but it's allowed in a government statistical table about equal opportunity? You're certainly entitled to believe the word is an insult, but it flies in the face of reality to say that everyone agrees with this assertion. You're cherry-picking your references and ignoring what they say. For example, HUD doesn't ban the word in advertising because it's an insult, as you claimed. Furthermore, I quoted the Alan Hu piece referenced. Your own reference says, "Some people grew up using "Oriental" and saw nothing wrong with the word." I'm not trying to prove that some people aren't offended by the word. I'm just trying to prove that there is no reason to be offended, that many people aren't offended and many people don't intend offense. I think all of these are very valid claims and I've yet to see you write anything to dispute this. Will Nesbitt 22:07, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

HUD bans the word. All dictionaries says it's insulting. It is rarely used in polite company but IS used in the world of pornography and criminal gangs BECAUSE of its illicit or naughty character. There are criminal usages,legacy usages and technical usages but I have not seen any common usages among normal people in recent decades, and neither has Will Nesbit. Richard Jensen 22:08, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

HUD does NOT ban the word. I worked at HUD. I know. I can reference and have referenced this on HUD documents. Richard, I don't know how to politely tell you that you don't know what you are talking about. It seems that you are intent on removing information which doesn't support your belief set:

No other state has regulated the usage of the word and it's commonly found on government documents describing race.

Please explain why it's news that one state bans the word, but we can't mention that 49 states do not have such prohibitions? Your reference' says, Some people grew up using "Oriental" and saw nothing wrong with the word. Do you disagree with your own reference? I'm not sure how you know what my wife and I say and what the orientals in our community say, but I can assure that it is not considered an impolite word. The DC gov't document does not list the N-word or a slang word for a hispanic on the form, but it has "Oriental"? Come on, Richard, you have be reasonable at some point. Will Nesbitt 22:22, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Nesbitt has yet to demonstrate that normal people use the word in the 21st century. Does HE use it? How, when, where? Richard Jensen 22:24, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

I use it almost every day when I talk to my wife (so does she). Here's |her picture. She was born in Korea, raised in California and for the last 20 years has lived in the Washington metro area. But what exactly is the point? Why is this a personal argument?

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism. Will Nesbitt 22:38, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Please let's try to lower the pressure here.

First, let me say that I really don't care about this (other than purely intellectual, and its impact on our little community here) and have no dog in this fight. But I just wanted to say that I find it interesting that Will's wife calls herself an oriental. That's fairly telling. As to the claim that all dictionaries say it's insulting, I was ready to believe this, but I decided to check it on dictionary.com, and I learned that it appears to be false. See [1] and this quotation in particular:

"Asian is now strongly preferred in place of Oriental for persons native to Asia or descended from an Asian people. The usual objection to Oriental—meaning "eastern"—is that it identifies Asian countries and peoples in terms of their location relative to Europe. However, this objection is not generally made of other Eurocentric terms such as Near and Middle Eastern. The real problem with Oriental is more likely its connotations stemming from an earlier era when Europeans viewed the regions east of the Mediterranean as exotic lands full of romance and intrigue, the home of despotic empires and inscrutable customs. At the least these associations can give Oriental a dated feel, and as a noun in contemporary contexts (as in the first Oriental to be elected from the district) it is now widely taken to be offensive. However, Oriental should not be thought of as an ethnic slur to be avoided in all situations. As with Asiatic, its use other than as an ethnonym, in phrases such as Oriental cuisine or Oriental medicine, is not usually considered objectionable." (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company)

Note the explicit note: "However, Oriental should not be thought of as an ethnic slur to be avoided in all situations."

But then note further down, from WordNet: "the term is regarded as offensive by Asians (especially by Asian Americans)". Will's wife and the American Heritage Dictionary appear to disagree!

I didn't know the complexity of the issue, actually, although I can't say I'm surprised. I think the way forward is to focus on representing that complexity; this is what Neutrality Policy requires, and which we are all committed. I have learned a great deal from working on these encyclopedia projects. When people sit down to work together on statements of their shared understandings, when those understandings come into conflict, all kinds of interesting insights can result. Knowledge deepened, vaguely grasped concepts laid bare, etc. So this sort of conflict can be a good thing, if we let it be, and we practice Professionalism. Thanks for listening...off to bed and soon after that, some travel... --Larry Sanger 22:45, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Larry beat me to it, but I agree. Surely there is something about 'Orient' that you two agree on. I always thought it was about a beautiful region of the world that was rich in culture, resources and politics. I get the impression that both of you feel that this region and these people are worthy of respect. That is who you are both defending. Maybe you can write about the region rather than the word for awhile, then maybe we can revisit the word controversy and hopefully find that it is only a small part of what the article is about. Meanwhile, keep it professional and Will, please remember that Richard is the editor here. That is not to say that your perspective doesn't matter, in fact quite the contrary. I know Richard heard everything you said. --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:50, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Will Nesbitt seems to think that liberals changed the language for their purposes, and conservatives are fighting back. That's not true at all. Starting in the 1960s a lot of ethnic groups demanded that nasty terms applying to them be considered insulting and a disgrace to the user. That happened to words like "Jap" and "Oriental" and "Asiatic". Liberals, conservatives and folks in between agreed and stopped using the terms. You dod NOT find them in conservative magazines like National Review All the dictionaries agree these are taboo words--they are used by criminal gangs and pornographers for that very reason. The job of CZ is not to set usage standards, it's to tell users what the current standards are.Richard Jensen 23:30, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Actually, we're not here for any kind of "standards", but we're here to inform either about the past, present, or (presumably) future. It's not our job to comply or noncomply with the "status quo". --Robert W King 23:41, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

If I may interject here, I think the problem is with this sentence "the adjective and substantive forms are the subject of controversy, and potentially offensive". As far as I can see, the only potential offence is in using the term oriental to apply to a person, and it is potentially offensive in exactly the same way for example that the term "Brit" is potentially offensive - any label for a person whether political or ethnic is potentially offensive for its assumptions and connotations if not endorsed by the person concerned. On these pages, I've been called English wjich I'm not and here in Scotland that's a term of abuse (I'm not Scottish either as it happens). As far as I can see, not only is the adjective Oriental deeply embedded in academia, but it's also widely used for example as a hotel name, given to luxury hotels in for example Hong Kong, Singapore, Bangkok and in Korea. It is not clear to me that the offensiveness is generalised.Gareth Leng 04:18, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Deconstructing the point of contention

Richard is indents, counter-point is not.

Will Nesbitt seems to think that liberals changed the language for their purposes,

It doesn't matter what I think. Just as it doesn't matter what language I personally use or where my wife is from. Please stop trying to make this a personal argument. The fact is that Diane Ravitch, and Robert Bork and countless other conservatives are documented as saying that liberals are trying to change the lexicon. Sourced quotes backing up this exact message have been deleted under the grounds that they are irrelevant.

and conservatives are fighting back.

Not particularly. The traditional position is the status quo position. There is no reason to "fight back" against political correctness when there is no change in reality. So long as this is a free country and people have the right to say whatever they want, there is nothing to fight back against. Edward Said and countless other intellectuals can rationalize all day long about why "oriental" is a bad word and how "orientalism" and "eurocentrism" are examples of evil in the world. We support their right to say what they want. I also concur with Diane Ravitch's opinion that is natural for words to fall into disuse or to evolve. What is not natural or desirable is for academic cliques to label certain words as banned. No matter what is written here, the Orient is still in the East, the Occident is still in the West and there is still nothing the matter with being Occidental or Oriental. I support your right to quote rationalizations for why Oriental is a bad word. I draw the line when you claim that yours is the sole and only position on the subject.

That's not true at all. Starting in the 1960s a lot of ethnic groups demanded that nasty terms applying to them be considered insulting and a disgrace to the user. That happened to words like "Jap" and "Oriental" and "Asiatic".

Asiatic is now on your list of bad words as well? That's certainly news to me. I can't begin to guess your rationalization for why Asiatic is a "no" word, but Asian is okay.

As for the term Jap, Jap is neither a disgrace, nor an insult and it is still in common usage today in some circles. However, I can understand why you might be confused. You should be aware that a "Jap" is a specific type of Japanese much the way a Nazi is specific type of German. A "Jap" is an Imperial Japanese. It is only reasonable for a Japanese person from Hawaii with no connection to Imperial Japan to object to the term Jap. Just as I would not refer to a co-worker as a Jap, I would not refer to a German co-worker as a Nazi. This is not because these words are slurs. This is because to do so would only be an indicator of my ignorance.

This is exactly the reason that encyclopedias exist: to educate the why's and wherefor's. An encyclopedia does not exist to tell people how or what to think.

All that aside, you blasted all my information about related words and thoughts which are supposed banned, because you said that wasn't germaine to the subject. I'm willing to play withing your boundaries, but what is a bit frustrating is this argument seems to have one set of rules (in your opinion) for your beliefset and another for my arguments. Is it too much to ask that we play by the same rules? Or to be more specific in this case: are related subjects like other "banned" words relevant or not?

Liberals, conservatives and folks in between agreed and stopped using the terms.

I'll back down and agree with you completely, if you can please show me the linguistic concord that was signed or other treaty where this agreement is recorded. I don't think the English language has the equivalent of a Vatican Conference, nor is there an English parliment or legistlative body where conservatives and liberals debate and agree to usage. Thus, I do not think this is an accurate statement.

By the way, the Filipina doctor, like many Orientals over the age of 40, didn't get the memo regarding the non-usage of this term. I hear this term used regularly. (Ed. Note: Oops! I'm not sure how I slipped this in, but I am referring to a recent client of mine who met my wife and began gushing about how much they had in common as "oriental women". )

It just seems that your opinions seem to be formed by a small circle of similarly minded friends. I admit to knowing many people who agree with your position. But I also know a great many who disagree with you. I also think the majority of people don't care / don't know. If you can't point to Hong Kong on a map, there's a good chance you really don't know the subtle differences between Asiatic and Asian. Most people don't know where Hong Kong is.

You dod NOT find them in conservative magazines like National Review'

I'm sorry but your just plain wrong here. I documented through references usages in an editorial (which was conservative) and usage by Michelle Malkin. These references were part of your ad hoc deletion.

Also, one of my biggest points of contention is that you insist on slapping conservative labels on people. I think it's inappropriate. However, I'm willing to play by your rules. If you would prefer to make personal value judgements and assign labels, isn't it fair to label the opposing veiwpoint as liberal? I'm eager to be reasonable, but what I find baffling and irksome is the imperious nature of your replies. You do not address points of contention. You just delete information and issue bulls.

It's okay to refute me. I encourage you to flag me where I'm wrong. As I've demonstrated on the Intelligent Design page, I'm happy and willing to concede facts and bow to logic. My history also shows that I don't have much respect for those who argue from personal opinion. I'm sorry if you interpret this to mean that I am disrespectful.

Thus far, I don't see any evidence of your willingness to be reasonable. When I refute your argument with references, you delete the references and ask me about my personal life?! I'm not worked up right now, but hopefully you can understand why that type of argument can be both frustrating and unconvincing.

All the dictionaries agree these are taboo words--they are used by criminal gangs and pornographers for that very reason. The job of CZ is not to set usage standards, it's to tell users what the current standards are.

This is a mispresentation of the facts. Please stop misrepresenting me and the dictionaries. All dictionaries (and I) agree that the word can be considered in derogatory in some circumstances. This is true of nearly every ethnic label that one can imagine. Furthermore, the impartiality of the dictionary is in dispute by a Clinton-appointed Department of Education appointee. Diane Ravitch has written a book that explains how and why textbooks and references get changed.

I conditionally agree with your assertion that findings of The Language Police and Bork and others are not relevant to this argument. They are irrelevant so long as no one attempts to make the argument that because some reference says oriental is inappropriate in some circumstances, therefore oriental is a banned word. Or to speak more plainly: if your argument is one of authority, I can quote authorities who both dispute your authority and disagree with your position. Will Nesbitt 06:37, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Will is fighting political correctness, but that is not an issue here. That in fact is not an allowed goal of CZ. We are an encyclopedia not a political blog. Ravitch and Bork, for example, never mentioned "Oriental"--they are talking about an entirely different matter (how textbooks are edited). The fact is that some words are naughty--that's why the pornographers and gangs use them. CZ reports that. The article clearly explains which uses of "oriental" are standard English and which are derogatory, and why. I checked a major conservative source (National Review online) and in recent years they seem pretty well to follow these guidelines. The only explicit opponents I have found are white supremacy websites. Richard Jensen 06:40, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

I've already directly and repeatedly sourced Ravitch speaking directly about the word Oriental. I can't make you read the book, but I can tell you that your assertion above is wrong. I also referenced a good many authorities who commented on Ravitch's writings about oriental. If you're trying to inflame me by inferring that I'm a white supremacist, that's not going to happen. In fact, all you're doing is making your argument look smaller and weaker by resorting to personal slurs. Will Nesbitt 06:59, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Exactly what did Ravitch say about "Oriental"? Richard Jensen 07:08, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

If you're going to pretend to speak with authority, will you please do some of your own research? You've already deleted many of my references, but they're not hard to track down. Enter "Ravitch and Oriental" in to your search engine of preference and you'll find a wealth of quotes and references. If you have a mind trot down to your local library and check out The Language Police. She devotes a goodly part of her book deconstructing the alleged slurs against the Orient, orientals and Asians.

That aside, and ignoring your personal insults, let's take this from a different tact. I assume you don't hold the untenable position that there is zero controversy around the connotations of this term. (Even your resources support the claim that some people do not find the term offensive.) If there is a controversy, it doesn't matter what your position is or what my position is. (So please quit trying to personalize the argument.) In the case of a controversy it is settled CZ policy that it is only our duty to report the controversy. It is not our job to make draw a definitive conclusion. Have you considered the oft suggested path of "writing for the enemy"?

I have great respect for the result of the arguing at Intelligent Design and would suggest you take a look at the grace and dignity with which this controversial topic was reported without diminishing anyone and without any name calling. Will Nesbitt 08:31, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Will, please understand that just because one source writes a book that asserts a position, it does not mean that is the "popular view". You must consider all viewpoints when writing a contentious article, and I urge you to take a step back from aggressively advancing the position that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

Additionally, Larry would agree that it is in fact not CZ's job to report all controvery--Wikipedia has that totally covered and in order to surpass them in terms of informative quality and atmosphere we must not allow ourselves to drop down to their particular level of standard.--Robert W King 08:55, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Please we can't use CZ for political goals, like denouncing political correctleess. Richard Jensen 08:59, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

I am not not aggressively or otherwise asserting that people who disagree with me are wrong. But there are factual errors in many of Richard's statements. For example, I am a field expert in Fair Housing Laws and practices. I worked at the highest levels at HUD for a political appointee. Richard is just plain wrong when he writes that "oriental" is a banned word at HUD. You don't have to take my word for it. Read the references. That is a point of fact. I cannot back down from points of fact. I am willing to make reasonable allowances for opinion.

Richard and many others sincerely believe that the term is pejorative in some circumstances. It is a fact that some people agree with that opinion. That still does not make the opinion fact. I think it is important to report that opinion.

It is also a fact that a great many people disagree with Richard's opinion. This is evidenced by the many discussion boards arguing the words connotations. I can dig these out if you're curious, but there is no point in arguing what the masses are saying on discussion boards, if Richard is going to disallow well sourced information by intellectuals.

I would agree that one book does not define a topic. For this very reason, Edward Said is not the beginning and end of Orientalism. Will Nesbitt 09:28, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

P.S. It's perfectly fine to be wrong. Defying the Laws of Probability, I am wrong with amazing regularity. However, when someone is so kind as to correct my ignorance I do not verbally assail them as discourteous, not a member of polite society, a white supremacist. Rather, I thank them and try to share the tiny portion of human knowledge that I possess. As an old boss once told me: no one knows everything, but everyone knows something that I don't know. Will Nesbitt 09:33, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

The Orient itself

Is it important to note anywhere in this article anything about the people or cultures of the Orient? I had references to Dharmic religions and mentioned an epicanthic fold, but Richard deleted these. Is it the consensus position that an article on the Orient should be primarily dedicated to stating that pornographers and white supremacists use the term Oriental?

Are the business usages important? Businesses such as Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, Mandarin Oriental, Oriental Financial Group, Inc.,Orient Thai Airlines, Orient Steam Navigation Company, Orient Watch Co., Neptune Orient Lines are just a few of many successful enterprises to share this term as a part of their name. Will Nesbitt 08:54, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

This article has got hung up on whether or not oriental is offensive. It may be, to some people, when applied to a person, but I have seen no evidence here or elsewhere to make me think that it is widely considered offensive when used otherwise. It seems to me that it is in wide and indispensible use in several contexts, notably for "oriental medicine". It's also a term with notably positive connotations in many areas - "The Orient Express" and the luxury hotels throughout the Far East attest to these. It is true that pornographers use it, as indeed they use "French" in many contexts, but, so what?

It does seem to me that the potential offensiveness of a term (in some contexts) must be balanced against its utility. The issue for me, and one I frankly am not equipped to answer, is whether the term has a particular utility. The potential offensiveness of the term lies in part in bundling together very diverse groups - Japan, China, Korea, Thailand etc, but on the other hand this grouping has many cultural commonalities - hence, I think, the persistence of Oriental Studies as an academic discipline. So what are those commonalities? Can we get away from fretting about how some unsavoury people use the word, and discuss the things for which it is a valuable and perhaps essential epithet? Gareth Leng 09:19, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Let's wrap up this debate, please

I want to ask the main disputants involved here to turn from debate, which has long past reached a point of diminishing returns, and toward a compromise position that fairly represents their respective views. If the article now represents such a position (I don't know--I haven't looked! :-) ) then, please, just stop debating the question whether as a noun "oriental" is ever inoffensive. There is no reason whatsoever to continue to try to prove things to each other on talk pages. Their purpose is to make a better article. Thanks. --Larry Sanger 09:29, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

I am sorry to have to wield my moderator's eraser, but please, stop characterizing other people's work habits and motives.

Let me point out, again, that to arrive at a compromise, no one has to agree with anyone else. I will propose a compromise, as an example. --Larry Sanger 09:54, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Done. I also rearranged for conceptual coherence and removed at least one repetition. The article at present is not about the Orient, but about the word "oriental". Is there any reason this article (without the very first paragraph should not live at oriental (word)? I'm also inclined to think that if we have an article about the Orient, it should live at the Orient, not Orient.

I hope Will and Richard (and others interested) will grace us with a discussion of the proposed compromises (there were many) before we open it up for general editing. --Larry Sanger 11:32, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Will's Nitpicks

In the order in which they appear here are the phrasings that I would nitpick:

While the geographical term "Orient" is relatively neutral, the adjective and substantive forms are widely considered offensive when applied to individuals; see below.

I think a more neutral but accurate statement would be:

The geographical term "Orient" is in wide usage, but some people consider the adjectival and substantive forms pejorative. Though some dispute this charge, many English speakers have ceased using this term when describing people in an effort to show greater sensitivity.

"Though some dispute this charge, many English speakers have ceased using this term when describing people in an effort to show greater sensitivity." This implies something which is speculative, and asserts a certain political position. --Robert W King 13:53, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

It is speculative to assert that the term is in disuse. I seriously doubt you have linguistic statistics to back up this claim. However, I'm not arguing the point because I think it's good for everyone if we are reasonable. It's reasonable to assume that some people still use the word regularly ... because they do. This has nothing to do with politics. Will Nesbitt 14:01, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Geez, enough, already! Why not just say: "The geographical term "Orient" is in wide usage, but some people consider the adjectival and substantive forms pejorative. Though others dispute this charge, many English speakers have ceased using this term." Hayford Peirce 14:17, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

See Nitpick 3, Hayford. I'm not trying to be a jerk. This is an important subject. It might not be important to you because you're not oriental, but the issue's unimportance is perhaps WHY the term has fallen into disuse. Will Nesbitt 14:24, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Alternatively, you may want to consider the other side of the argument, that perhaps the issue is not as grand as it seems, and thus is in fact unimportant except to, perhaps, a population that wishes to bring attention to themselves by highlighting the issue, which I think has been conveyed, but I could be mistaken.--Robert W King 14:34, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

I would agree that this is a perfectly reasonable argument and perhaps correct to the point of being definitive. On the other hand, why was this an issue when a handful of students in the Pacific Northwest started this debate? Will Nesbitt 14:43, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Because it follows the same logic as the "nanny state"--one person gets injured as a result of their own poor lapse in judgement and therefore raises a cause to prevent that incident from ever happening again by requiring some kind of legislation to be passed. It's the same argument that's used many times over, popularized by the slogan "guns don't kill people, people kill people", in a nutshell. At least that's my theory.--Robert W King 14:49, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Nitpick 2

The term is in wide use in business as well. I've documented these elsewhere. What is the rationale for dropping this. Next nitpick:

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.

By what rights can we ascribe the motive of these speakers? It is my assertion that the term is still in wide usage in many segments of the population. Asian English speakers over the age of 40 in non-academic environments use the term with regularity. I know this anecdotally, but I don't have a reference to back me up. The "OPB" and "ORB" refer to themselves as oriental ... period ... end of sentence. There is no need to add an editorial. The reader can make his own decision.

Nitpick 3

The article states:

In the 1960s, some Asian Americans began protesting the term as applied to people as insulting. Today, unquestionably, in educated and polite company, one very rarely hears the word applied to people, and so the protestations seem to have stuck.

This is true but misleading, and what it leaves unsaid is very telling. Firstly, people who are happy don't protest. The majority of Asian Americans weren't even aware the protests were occurring. The nexus of protests can be tracked back to Alan Sugiyama former president of the Oriental Student Union at SCCC. Direct quote: "The protest was in part modeled after a successful Black Student Union (BSU) protest at SCCC in 1969."

Here's why this is important. There are many conservative minded Asians who want no parts of this movement and many more who would not want any part of this movement if they fully understood its origins and what it was all about. I'll also concede that there are many (and perhaps the majority of) Asians agree completely with this movement. But either way, they should not do so out of some emotional push-button. They, and all English speakers, should know what this is all about.

The choice is thus: would Asian Americans would rather model themselves after the Black civil rights leaders and movement(who were colored, then negro, then afro-american then African American); or would they rather model themselves after the Jews, a people who remained Jews no matter what stigma others have attempted to attach to the word? We will never know unless the truth is out there.

All that said, I am willing to concede that in some circles the word oriental has fallen into disuse. It's my assertion that this is evidence of the political math. (I've stated this before.) If you're "pro" on banning oriental, you can please those for whom this is a big issue. Those who are not offended by the word oriental are not offended by East Asian. ie. Little risk, small reward. On the other hand if you are "con" on banning oriental and you use the word in the wrong place, you risk offending someone. ie. Some risk, no reward.

So that means the word's diminishing usage is important to understand when attempting to understand American culture.

Nitpick 4

These two sentences are extremely important, methinks, but a bit awkward.

While "I ordered oriental rice" is acceptable, "I handed my coat to an oriental woman" is not, for most Asians. The reason is that the usage carries heavy baggage: a long tradition of connotations of being exotic, foreign, inscrutable, or mysterious, which coincide with many of the stereotypes held of Asians.

I don't dispute the general feeling behind these two sentences, but the reality is much more nuanced and this reads like a personal opinion and not a fact. Furthermore, what type of source is Alan Hu? If I make a web page can you source me? For this to carry any weight at all it has to be proven by reason, not stated as given fact.

Why? Why is it a bad word? We still say "Survival of the Fittest" and "Evolution" despite the fact that these where phrasings and ideas that were used to justify 18th Century imperialism. We don't have a new word for Jews, despite the fact that every other century they have suffered horribly in Europe. Pretend I'm trying to learn (because I am) and please teach me why this word is so hateful. Other than political reasons (which are not insubstantial), I honestly don't get it.

Furthermore, by condensing this entire debate into these two sentences, you ignore the many people for whom this word is a total non-issue. Check any discussion group about this word and you'll find there is no such consensus. Contrary to prior assertions many (perfectly respectable) people think there is nothing wrong with being an oriental. Will Nesbitt 14:23, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Nitpick 5

Why is "See Orientalism" at the top of the article? Aren't further reading references typically found at the bottom of the article? Will Nesbitt 06:59, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Is this only an American debate?

I ask the question in all innocence, as this has never entered my sphere of experience, as someone who has worked for some time on migration, racism etc. My knowledge is that in the UK you would be thought to be a little condescending for calling someone an "oriental", but it is not an absolute insult. In the rest of Europe, I am not aware of this sensitivity, and in Greece it refers only to cultures and regions Eastern. So, my question is: does this debate exist in other Anglophone countries [and which ones] and in any other regions? I suspect the answer is Yes for North America, and limited relevance for UK and Australia, and almost none for Europe generally -- but, I defer to more expert opinion. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:35, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

In the UK no-one 'bats an eyelid' (notices/complains) at the use of 'Oriental' when applied to a non-human, e.g. there's the Oriental Museum in Durham, which was right next door to the East Asian studies department of Durham University and the Japanese Teikyo university campus. Notice how the museum uses the word, but the academic department doesn't. It's rather old-fashioned and possibly offensive to use it as an adjective ("he's Oriental") and very old-fashioned and probably offensive to use it as a noun in this case ("he's an Oriental"). But identifying nationality, race etc. with a noun in the UK is a dispreferred anyway - "he's an American" could have slightly negative connotations, for example, where "he's American" probably wouldn't. No-one really uses 'Oriental' that much, I think because most British East Asians are Chinese - so people call them 'Chinese' - and I have heard "Far Easterners" from someone searching for the right word. John Stephenson 23:28, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm extremely put out that my response to Martin's question was just lost in transit! Can't do that again right now, so here's the short version: I think your observations are quite correct and John's are spot on too. But that doesn't mean there's no room for debate, only that for any or all of many reasons, in some countries the debate hasn't come to the fore. Forty or so years ago, Americans wouldn't have been debating this, either. Aleta Curry 22:47, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

It is the current editorial position of CZ that Americans are not debating this issue. The debate has ended and "oriental" is a word only used by naughty boys and pornographers. Members of polite society do not use this term any more. Will Nesbitt 02:25, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Now, really, Will. I've read all your posts carefully and you are too intelligent to write anything so petulant. Judging by all the writing here, Americans certainly are debating the issue--the particular Americans who are editors are simply not agreeing with you. Aleta Curry 19:54, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Thank you. Petulance is afterall the last tactic of an angry man. ;^)

I have come to understand that the editors here are no so much debating me as they are educating me. This student is merely repeating very nearly direct quotes to reflect the current state of his education regarding Oriental and Orientalism. Until someone can prove that position wrong, and my many usage references evidently have not, then that is that position is my position. Will Nesbitt 06:09, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Fair enough. I would like to make it clear, though, that I *am* reading your input and considering it carefully and dispassionately. The ability to listen to opposing arguments and treat them objectively is one of my strengths, though I say so myself.

I have some thoughts on this, which I won't make here because I don't wish to be tedious or rekindle tensions that Larry has been trying to diffuse.

I'll address the matter on my can we talk? page. (Not today, it's Sunday morning here.) You may all visit or ignore as you choose.

Aleta Curry 17:54, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Unprotect this article

As I don't see too much in the way of argument concerning Larry's compromise solution. I would consider unprotecting the article for further editing. Any objections? --Matt Innis (Talk) 08:43, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Opposed. I'd rather that Larry do my editing. ;^) Will Nesbitt 16:52, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Am I to assume that no counterpoint on the suggested edits (see Will's Nitpicks above) means that my suggestions should be edited into the text once the protection is lifted? Will Nesbitt 08:38, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

I would not assume that. It's not the editor's responsibility to add every unchallenged edit to an entry. It is, however, the editors' responsibility to guide the development of the entry. If it is unprotected, then I would make your edits one (or one point/topic) at a time, with comment lines indicating your rationale, and let editors have time to respond. Russell Potter 09:39, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

I never cease to be amazed by my ability to be unclear. What I meant to say is: Am I to assume that no counterpoint on the suggested edits (see Will's Nitpicks above) means that I should edit the text once the protection is lifted? Which, I think, is almost the same thing that Russell is saying. Will Nesbitt 09:53, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

I would offer your new sentence on this talk page and once you all agree to the compromised change, move to the next "Nitpick". When you are satisfied, I can ask Larry to unprotect the page (since he is the one that protected it). --Matt Innis (Talk) 11:18, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Just out of curiosity, *where* does it say anywhere on the article page that it is protected. I'm sure that it is: I'd just like to know what the mechanism is so that in the future I'll be able to recognize other protected articles. Thanks. Hayford Peirce 12:12, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Right now the only way *you* would know it is by reading the article history. Constables have an extra tab that tells us. --Matt Innis (Talk) 13:27, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, what would happen if I wanted to make an edit? I'd push the "save page" button and nothing would happen? Or I'd get a message saying that I couldn't make an edit? Shouldn't it be set up so that an unwary editor wouldn't spend, say, half an hour writing an elaborate edit and then discovering that he had wasted his time? Hayford Peirce 14:08, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Hayford, actually anyone can tell -- you will not see an "edit" tab on a protected article, just a "View Source" tab -- which, if you click it, will warn you that you can't edit the text, but show you the source. Russell Potter 14:20, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

I didn't know that. Thanks Russell. As far as letting people know, this is the first time that I am aware that we have frozen a debated article, but in keeping with our "no unnecessary templates" plan, I don't think we want to open the door to putting anything at the top that would open that can of worms. --Matt Innis (Talk) 14:28, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Lo, unprotected. --Larry Sanger 02:31, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Page name

As a general rule, we should always name our articles according to the actual contents of the article, not according to our long-term intentions with them. This article concerns the word "oriental" first and foremost, although it begins as if it concerns the word "orient." I don't know who the experts on the word are, whether linguists, but certainly Asian Studies people are the main experts. We just don't have an Asian Studies group--yet!

Please leave the article here on this page until we have actually added information about The Orient. --Larry Sanger 02:36, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Pornographic use

There's a sentence, sitting at the bottom of a section, bereft of any references:

Likewise the pornographic world uses "oriental" regularly to describe models behaving in socially unacceptable ways.

Does it really? In my experience, the work "oriental" is used to describe models of East Asian origin. The word "taboo" is used to describe models performing unusual or socially-unacceptable sex acts. Anthony Argyriou 12:51, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Time to do some research. (just kidding) --Larry Sanger 12:58, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Jeez! You really *don't* want any friends, do you? ;) Aleta Curry 17:56, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, anyway, I've removed that sentence, as there is no reference and it contradicts my experience. Reverting it to the earlier version would leave it rather out of context. I'm sure if the person who added "behaving in socially unacceptable ways" wants it back, he can find a proper reference. Anthony Argyriou 21:45, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

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)