Talk:Oriental (word)

Article Checklist for "Oriental (word)"

Workgroup category or categories	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	-- 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

The article as it now stands culls out a few usages to make a point of view and ignores a mountain of mainstream usage. This does not appear to be in good faith. Will Nesbitt 13:47, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

please don't challenge the good faith of CZ editors. This article was a horrid mess full of POV that had little connection with "Oriental" and instead was an attack on textbook publishers! It cited people like Robert Bork who never commented on "Oriental". I personally checked every single footnote and deleted the ones that were irrelevant or simply wrong. (For example the original article cited as approved usage government texts that warned AGAINST using the term. That's incompetence based on google rather than actual reading.) Richard Jensen 14:19, 4 July 2007 (CDT)