Talk:Oriental (word): Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Russell Potter
imported>Anthony.Sebastian
(→‎Zoology: new section)
 
(137 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{checklist
{{subpages}}
|                abc = Oriental
|                cat1 = Linguistics
|                cat2 = Geography
|                cat3 = Sociology
|          cat_check = y
|              status = 2
|        underlinked = y
|            cleanup = y
|                  by = --[[User:Aleksander Stos|Aleksander Stos]] 04:38, 30 June 2007 (CDT) [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:40, 24 June 2007 (CDT); [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 05:08, 22 June 2007 (CDT)
}}


==Reasons for this article?==
== "For most Asians" ==
As it stands, this article sourced from Wikipedia and modified by [[User:Will_Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] seems to be defending the use of the term 'Oriental'. Recommend some modifications. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 05:11, 22 June 2007 (CDT)


: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."


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 have made this change.  The reason is straightforward.  As Will has amply demonstrated, not everyone agrees with the claim in question.  Hence, our [[CZ:Neutrality Policy|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. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 03:20, 3 August 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)
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. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 14:14, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


Well, if it isn't edited more vigorously, we might delete it simply on grounds that it is sourced from WP without change (see [[CZ:Article Deletion Policy|Article Deletion Policy]]).  But the topic itself is perfectly legitimate--just not a high priority, perhaps--and when did that ever stop us? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:40, 24 June 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.  [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 17:48, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


:[[Edward Said]] has many very well know critical statements on "Oriental" and "Occidental". ---[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 00:11, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
::My response above was not written to reflect anything you posted below. I wrote that because it is a fact that some speakers agree with this line of thinking. It is a fact that some speakers do not agree with this line of thinking.  


::This article seems to conflate the adjective "Oriental" with the substantive (noun) "an Oriental."  The latter is surely both offensive, and quite dated, in almost any context, and I don't think it's fair to lump the two uses together, as the former lends an air of false legitimacy to the latter. I would propose breaking this into two entries, one for the broad term "Orient" in its historical contexts, Oriental Studies, etc., and the rest to become part of an entry on ethnic epithets generally. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 08:29, 30 June 2007 (CDT)
::I take your comment to mean that you saying that what some speakers think is more relevant than what others speak about the same subject? I actually find this thought a bit offensive, but I might be misreading you. This is the same line of argument that was used for a time to justify the language of rappers. The theory was that they were allowed to use racist terms and misogynistic terms because there thoughts were somehow privileged and more relevant when speaking about certain issues.


:::Even to do so might not obviate the desirability of an article about the noun.  You say, interestingly, that "an Oriental" is "offensive."  When did that come about?  Why?  Does everyone agree with you?  Who made it so? Those are matters that might be explained in an article about the noun. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:03, 30 June 2007 (CDT)
::I personally ascribe to the theory that words mean the same thing no matter who speaks them.   


:::P.S. There's a reason I care about this.  I'll put it bluntly: I don't want simply to censor an article about an epithet simply because it is offensive to people and smacks of racism.  If someone is able to write a good article about the noun, which explains in great detail the extent to which it is now considered offensive, and explains as well the mistakes the use encoded, etc., that would be helpful, even to the cause of political correctness. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:13, 30 June 2007 (CDT)
::However, I'm not sure that my personal opinion or yours really matters. (It's a waste of time to argue this.) The fact remains that some speakers agree with this and some do not.  This is factual and keeps us out of a side argument of no import or consequence. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 19:30, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


::::I am not suggesting any sort of censorship.  But if we are going to have entries about terms which are considered offensive by a great many of the persons to whom they are applied, I think we should discuss them, with full and complete neutrality, in an entry or entries '''about''' such terms, rather than using such potentially divisive terms '''as''' entry titles.  "Political correctness" is a chimera, I feel, invented by those who needed something to which to object; all we are talking about here is common courtesy, and in the interests of neutrality discussing terms which many find offensive as such, rather than using them -- perhaps offensively -- as index terms in themselves.  Should we have mainspace entries on Dago?  Wop? Polack? Retard?  The terms are used, and perhaps some people, however much they may offend some, would defend them, but does that means ''we'' ought to say they're "controversial"??  By all means, let us explain the mistakes -- which I thought I had done here -- but why need we repeat them? [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 16:04, 30 June 2007 (CDT)
:You *are* misreading me, and I'm going to disregard all the red herrings. I specifically said "in this instance".  What I mean is, bluntly, that if your subject is "Do Roman Catholics object to being called Papists?", you must stick to the topic, rather than talking exclusively about what Methodists and Baptists and Lutherans and Episcopalians think of calling Roman Catholics "papist" and never talking about how Roman Catholics feel about it.


==Counter Point==
::Thanks for the clarification. I'm not misreading you. I'm just disagreeing with you. ;^)
I'd written a fairly windy response and timed out before saving ... bummer. I'll type what I can remember from memory:


Firstly and foremostly, unlike the slurs that you mention above, the term oriental was never slang and to my knowledge has never been used in a perjorative fashion. (Ever.) Furthermore, the [[American Oriental Society]] is one of the oldest and most respected academic organizations in the US. There is no such equivalent using any of the slurs you list above. Until linguistically very recently, there has been ZERO controversy surrounding this word.
::Some people who are not Roman Catholics may find the word "papist" offensive. Meaning they don't like it when their Roman Catholic spouses are called papists. They are offended by the word papist because they think the word is antiquated and inaccurate. I don't think there is any reason to label the offended as a particular type of person. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 07:23, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


It is my opinion, and I think I can prove that the "controversy" surrounding the word oriental is a construct of a political movement that sought "victim" and "minority" status for Americans of East Asian descent. This movement has expanded unchallenged because the political math is pretty simple: there is much to lose and nothing to gain by opposing this movement. The movement, the victims and the politicians all gain something by agreeing that orientals are a persecuted people. 
:"Some people who are not Roman Catholics may find the word "papist" offensive."  
:True. '''Not my point.''' [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 18:48, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


That said, I think that for most people, this is a fairly silly matter, of little import. Other than the politically motivated few, no one has much vested interest in the term "oriental".  My oriental wife has no more attachment to this word than does her occidental husband to the term occidental. The reason this matter is important in a reference work can best be illustrated by the following example.
==Rumor or Fact?==


Some years back a politician used the word "niggardly" in his speech.  There was an outcry and the black community in particular was outraged. The politician tried to explain that the speech and the word had nothing to do with African Americans. If there was any connection to the African American community, it was that he was trying to get the government to stop being so niggardly and give the poor and minorities more money.  It was no use. The more he talked the worse it got. In the end he had to apologize for using the word "niggardly". He had to apologize, not because the word was wrong, but because the people who were offended were ignorant.  He knew that. The reporters knew that. You and I know that, but on that day, the lexicon of the Capitol was forever changed. Never again would a politician or anyone in the public eye use the word "niggardly".  
: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.


By the same token, I am quite certain that I can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no reason for anyone to ever take offense to the word Oriental. On the other hand, I can also prove that some people have taken offense to the word oriental. Many people have taken offense to the word niggardly, but not because they were stingy.
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. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 07:33, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


This article by the way was ported over from old edits of an article I wrote at Wikipedia. I wrote most of it, researched nearly all of it.  I was frustrated that Wikipedia refused to acknowledge even the possibility that Oriental could be anything less than a slur.
==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.


I think the article needs a great deal of work. I just couldn't find an editor who would enage in a realistic and fair-minded dialogue.  My counter parts prefered to use ad hominem attacks and accuse me of being racist, lacking in common courtesy or otherwise deficient, rather than engaging in any type of serious dialogue.  
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.


For me, "oriental = bad" is one part urban-legend and one part political-flapdoodle. Still, I would agree and it is reportable that many people think of oriental as a bad word. But my conclusion after a great deal of research is that the offense is only taken when the listener is ignorant. It really doesn't matter how many people believe in UFO visitations. If there's no evidence of visitations, there are no visitations. It doesn't matter how many people claim they are offended by the term oriental, if the people who make the claim don't know what the term means. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 18:34, 30 June 2007 (CDT)
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. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 07:42, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


::Will --
:''"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.
: [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 18:01, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


::You say "By the same token, I am quite certain that I can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no reason for anyone to ever take offense to the word Oriental. On the other hand, I can also prove that some people have taken offense to the word oriental. Many people have taken offense to the word niggardly, but not because they were stingy."
::Aleta, I can extract and footnote the quotes if necessary, but that in and of itself would prove nothing. I should have said "some CZ editors" as that would have been much more accurate.


:: Well, I know a large number of people -- from Hong Kong, Singapore, and Indonesia -- who have felt and would feel ''deeply'' offended by the term "Oriental."  But you seem to contradict yourself here -- which is it to be? Offense is hard to prove in the negative.  As for "niggardly," by the way, is etymologically unrelated to the "N-word" though some mistakenly think it so; it just means "stingy" and the *NIK stem is completely different [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 18:41, 30 June 2007 (CDT)
::My point remains that a goodly number of people who are both educated and polite have no fear of the word ''Oriental''. They do not believe the word is any better or worse than ''Occidental'', ''European'' or even hyphenated politically correct constructs such as ''East-Asian''. In the end though, their opinions, like mine, don't matter. The fact is the word remains in standard English usage as evidence by many many footnotes. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 18:26, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


::::A larger number of people from Hong Kong, Singapore and Indonesia would never be offended by the term ''Oriental'' ... because they don't speak English!  The Cantonese word for white guy has no impact on my life.  My point is that those who are offended, are offended soley out of ignorance of the meaning of the word.
:Will, I have understood and am not disputing your point.  You may have missed mine, which is on '''context'''.  [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 19:05, 5 August 2007 (CDT)


::::I know what niggardly means. I didn't bother to explain it, because I assumed you would know as well. You seemed to have missed my point. The point is that it is a fact that many people are offended by the term niggardly. Does that mean we should abolish the word niggardly? Who is more correct in the following instance: those who are offended by the term; or those who employ the term correctly?  Do you see the connection?[[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 18:49, 30 June 2007 (CDT)
::Then I am still missing it. ;^)


::::Pt. 2--> Offense is NOT hard to prove. At the risk of offending the reader I could readily list slurs and words that are offensive.  Offensive is easy to prove.  It's actually hard to prove the reverse. It's quite hard to prove that the word "nigger" or the word "kike" has any use in a serious dialogue other than as example of a racial slur. The point is those who take offense aren't always justified. It's important to educate people, most especially people for whom English is a second language. Oriental has traditionally been a word that connoted a certain high-regard for Eastern cultures. Certain political elements have preyed upon the natual tendency of all minorities to feel implied persection and co-opted this word to further their aims. It's okay if you want to buy into that. But I'm not buying into it. For me, there is nothing the matter with being Oriental. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 19:00, 30 June 2007 (CDT)
::Sorry, it's my fault, not yours. I am sometimes a bit thick-headed but I try to make-up for this short-coming with effort.  


:::::You say  that "the Cantonese word for white guy has no impact on my life." -- well, OK, then, that just proves you are a ''Gwailo'' ! [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 21:05, 30 June 2007 (CDT)
::I agree that context is important to understanding whether "Oriental" is an insult or not, but I don't understand how this is unique to Oriental.  The same could be said of Yank, Irishman, Frenchie, black man, Northerner, Southerner, Mexican, etc.  I agree that a fool can attempt to use the Oriental label as an insult. I do not agree that there is anything intrinsically insulting about being called an Oriental. I believe that any term used to describe a class of human beings can be construed as an insult and I defy you to find a term that is not insulting in certain circumstances.  For example the term "little angel" can be a compliment or an insult depending upon tone and context. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 19:35, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
:a) I didn't say it was unique to "Oriental" and b) we're not discussing any of those other words. Will, you're certainly not "thick-headed" here; you've demonstrated that you understand the ''concept'' absolutely perfectly.  So what I need to understand is why the question of context should not be applied to the word "Oriental" the way it would be to all those others? The best you can say is "that there is no great controversy associated with this word in some contexts"--not sure why that is problematic?  Or maybe you're thinking something like "Due to the prevailing school of political thought, today, unquestionably, in educated and polite company, one very rarely hears the word applied to people, even though use of the word is uncontroversial in some contexts"?
:Anyway, I'm very aware that this page is on dispute watch and don't want to cross the line, so feel free to [[user_talk:Aleta_Curry|come talk]].  (And thanks for dropping me a line) [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 01:14, 6 August 2007 (CDT)


==Who are we afraid of offending?==
Should we avoid certain talk when a page is under dispute watch?  I don't think context is unimportant.  What I think is insulting are the terms "polite" and "educated".  That implies that those who use the term are both impolite and uneducated. That just isn't a factual statement. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 07:26, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
It was suggested that we remove the phrase "that part of the world where both [[Dharmic]] religions are dominant and most natives of the region have an [[epicanthic fold]]." Is there something bad about Dharmic religions?  Should those Eastern Asians not on the subcontinent of India be somehow ashamed that they have epicanthic folds? My arguement is that these two descriptors are much more honest and accurate. Removing them and replacing them with some vague compass points is less accurate and seems to imply that we are not comfortable mentioning religion or racial features. If religion and race are not appropriate when talking about a region of the world when would these ever be appropriate topics? [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 18:43, 30 June 2007 (CDT)
 
==Missing Source==
:Proposition: Source or remove following sentence: "However "oriental medicine" is somewhat more controversial."
 
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.  [[User:Will Nesbitt|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 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. [[User:Will Nesbitt|Will Nesbitt]] 07:53, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
 
== Zoology ==
 
From the ''New Oxford American Dictionary'', 3rd ed., 2012:
 
"'''Oriental''' (Zoology) of, relating to, or denoting a zoogeographical region comprising Asia south of the Himalayas and Indonesia west of Wallace's line. Distinctive animals include pandas, gibbons, tree shrews, tarsiers, and moonrats." [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 03:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:07, 30 October 2013

This article is developing and not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  Generalized notion of the "East," including the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia which in modern usage is applied to those parts of Asia east of Afghanistan, but outside of the Indian sub-continent. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories:  Linguistics, Geography and Sociology [Editors asked to check categories]
 Talk Archive:  1  English language variant:  British English

"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."

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)
My response above was not written to reflect anything you posted below. I wrote that because it is a fact that some speakers agree with this line of thinking. It is a fact that some speakers do not agree with this line of thinking.
I take your comment to mean that you saying that what some speakers think is more relevant than what others speak about the same subject? I actually find this thought a bit offensive, but I might be misreading you. This is the same line of argument that was used for a time to justify the language of rappers. The theory was that they were allowed to use racist terms and misogynistic terms because there thoughts were somehow privileged and more relevant when speaking about certain issues.
I personally ascribe to the theory that words mean the same thing no matter who speaks them.
However, I'm not sure that my personal opinion or yours really matters. (It's a waste of time to argue this.) The fact remains that some speakers agree with this and some do not. This is factual and keeps us out of a side argument of no import or consequence. Will Nesbitt 19:30, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
You *are* misreading me, and I'm going to disregard all the red herrings. I specifically said "in this instance". What I mean is, bluntly, that if your subject is "Do Roman Catholics object to being called Papists?", you must stick to the topic, rather than talking exclusively about what Methodists and Baptists and Lutherans and Episcopalians think of calling Roman Catholics "papist" and never talking about how Roman Catholics feel about it.
Thanks for the clarification. I'm not misreading you. I'm just disagreeing with you. ;^)
Some people who are not Roman Catholics may find the word "papist" offensive. Meaning they don't like it when their Roman Catholic spouses are called papists. They are offended by the word papist because they think the word is antiquated and inaccurate. I don't think there is any reason to label the offended as a particular type of person. Will Nesbitt 07:23, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
"Some people who are not Roman Catholics may find the word "papist" offensive."
True. Not my point. Aleta Curry 18:48, 6 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 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.

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)
Aleta, I can extract and footnote the quotes if necessary, but that in and of itself would prove nothing. I should have said "some CZ editors" as that would have been much more accurate.
My point remains that a goodly number of people who are both educated and polite have no fear of the word Oriental. They do not believe the word is any better or worse than Occidental, European or even hyphenated politically correct constructs such as East-Asian. In the end though, their opinions, like mine, don't matter. The fact is the word remains in standard English usage as evidence by many many footnotes. Will Nesbitt 18:26, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
Will, I have understood and am not disputing your point. You may have missed mine, which is on context. Aleta Curry 19:05, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
Then I am still missing it. ;^)
Sorry, it's my fault, not yours. I am sometimes a bit thick-headed but I try to make-up for this short-coming with effort.
I agree that context is important to understanding whether "Oriental" is an insult or not, but I don't understand how this is unique to Oriental. The same could be said of Yank, Irishman, Frenchie, black man, Northerner, Southerner, Mexican, etc. I agree that a fool can attempt to use the Oriental label as an insult. I do not agree that there is anything intrinsically insulting about being called an Oriental. I believe that any term used to describe a class of human beings can be construed as an insult and I defy you to find a term that is not insulting in certain circumstances. For example the term "little angel" can be a compliment or an insult depending upon tone and context. Will Nesbitt 19:35, 5 August 2007 (CDT)
a) I didn't say it was unique to "Oriental" and b) we're not discussing any of those other words. Will, you're certainly not "thick-headed" here; you've demonstrated that you understand the concept absolutely perfectly. So what I need to understand is why the question of context should not be applied to the word "Oriental" the way it would be to all those others? The best you can say is "that there is no great controversy associated with this word in some contexts"--not sure why that is problematic? Or maybe you're thinking something like "Due to the prevailing school of political thought, today, unquestionably, in educated and polite company, one very rarely hears the word applied to people, even though use of the word is uncontroversial in some contexts"?
Anyway, I'm very aware that this page is on dispute watch and don't want to cross the line, so feel free to come talk. (And thanks for dropping me a line) Aleta Curry 01:14, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Should we avoid certain talk when a page is under dispute watch? I don't think context is unimportant. What I think is insulting are the terms "polite" and "educated". That implies that those who use the term are both impolite and uneducated. That just isn't a factual statement. Will Nesbitt 07:26, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Missing Source

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

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 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)

Zoology

From the New Oxford American Dictionary, 3rd ed., 2012:

"Oriental (Zoology) of, relating to, or denoting a zoogeographical region comprising Asia south of the Himalayas and Indonesia west of Wallace's line. Distinctive animals include pandas, gibbons, tree shrews, tarsiers, and moonrats." Anthony.Sebastian 03:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Oriental_(word)&oldid=29134"