Jump to content

Talk:Chinese, Japanese, dirty knees

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This isn't a valid article and people pointing this out is being suppressed

[edit]

Maybe I'm wrong, but is it within Wikipedia standards to create a fragmented unsourced and biased article to back up an argument about a single controversy from a single film?

"is a racist playground chant in English-speaking countries, used to mock children of Asian origin." - lots of citations needed. "Several Asian Americans recalled" -Oh, several? This is like "some say" but with only 2 examples in the universe. "In 2020, the film Monster Hunter caused an uproar on Chinese social media" - this is why this "article" was created. Purely to establish an argument over a movie's release controversy.

I'm not saying this subject doesn't deserve to be an article if enough actual information can be found and it isn't worded like a 3 paragraph blog rebuttal on a movie website.

Examples of real articles about school yard rhymes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_a_Ring_o%27_Roses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eeny,_meeny,_miny,_moe

And I noticed in your ambition to plant this evidence, you slipped this page into a list of songs on another, already established page, even though this isn't a song: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_playground_songsJ1DW (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is an opinion piece, and not written in an encyclopedic way at all. 172.91.107.147 (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Family guy

[edit]

@Sandstein: I've put out a request for sources at WP:RSX (link) If no one finds anything after a few weeks or so, feel free to remove the statement.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prisencolin, what is the point of mentioning a mere mention of this phrase in this article? Particularly as long as we have no reliable sources about what it is even supposed to mean in the context of the work? This is mere trivia, which we disdain; see WP:TRIVIA. Sandstein 21:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Representation of a particular aspect of culture in another medium isn't trivia in my opinion if it can be reliably sourced. However I will agree to remove it if no critical analysis of the line being used in Family Guy can't be found. At the moment very little critical reception to Family Guy in general can be found from 2006 for some reason, even thought it had already become a widely acclaimed show by that point. I have to assume WP:PRINT sources are available somewhere... --Prisencolin (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prisencolin, then put it in after you found sources, not before. As you say yourself, without secondary sources, this has no place here. Sandstein 21:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PSTS there's no prohibition on primary sources on Wikipedia. The reason I'm willing to compromise and remove it in a few weeks is to avoid edit warring.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you wanted to avoid edit-warring, you'd not have re-added this piece of trivia twice after I reverted it. If you'd wanted to edit responsibly, you'd have waited with re-adding it until after you have found proper secondary sources. Sandstein 21:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: I would recommend checking out MOS:CULTURALREFS. It states "The consensus is very clear that a secondary source is required in almost all cases". This arguably trumps the advice on WP:PRIMARY. And nice one for requesting a 3rd opinion. Chumpih. (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chumpih: Thanks for the 3O. @Sandstein:, you want to remove it again that's fine, I won't revert unless I can find a secondary source.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate to claim that children do the chant to express "contempt"

[edit]

One or more editors has ben repeatedly restoring the claim that the reason children pull their eyes into slits is "to make clear the object of their contempt." That phrase is unencyclopedic and inappropriate. It is highly unlikely that jumproping 6 year-olds who are chanting a nursery rhyme—even a nursery rhyme with racist implications—are doing so in order to express "contempt." To have contempt for something means to despise it.

One editor who restored the claim about "contempt" even declared that the claim is "sourced." That is of course absurd. There is no source confirming what children had in their hearts. The only source cited for the claim is a chapter from a book by Michelle Rhee. I'm not able to confirm whether Rhee does in fact claim in the chapter that the children have contempt. And even if she did, that would STILL BE AN OPINION (and it would not be the only controversial statement that has been made by Rhee). 172.91.107.147 (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that the contempt bit should stay out. It disturbs me that there is no page number in the reference, and I can't find the phrase. (I searched for the word "contempt" in the book on Google Books, and nothing came up.) But even if I could, it could refer to a particular group of children rather than all children. StAnselm (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence is a bit misleading

[edit]

The opening sentence says: "Chinese, Japanese, dirty knees" is a racist playground chant used to mock children of Asian origin. That may be technically true, but it is a bit misleading because it implies that the chant is mainly used to mock children. I don't think that's an accurate depiction.

I think a better sentence would be: "Chinese, Japanese, dirty knees" is a racist playground chant that in some cases has been used to mock children of Asian origin. The difference is subtle, and the revised sentence would contain all the information contained in the original sentence, but the revised version avoids the (almost certainly false) implication that the chant has primarily been used to mock children.

Editors who reverted the revised sentence claimed that it was contradicted by the cited sources. But the editors did not identify the sources they were referring to or how those sources refuted the revised sentence. In fact, the cited sources in the article do not support the implication that the chant has mainly been used to mock children. To be clear, I am not disputing the (plainly true) fact that the chant has been used to mock children. I am disputing the implication that the chant has mainly been used to mock children, which is an implication that could easily be avoided simply by inserting the subtly qualifying language that I proposed.

Perhaps the reverting editors were referring to the cited "Dirty Knees" essay by Zaloom (https://books.google.com/books?id=YTNbU-DIQaQC&pg=PA26#v=onepage&q&f=false). But looking at that source, there is no implication that the chant was mainly used to mock children. On the contrary, the context in which the chant is mentioned is in an anecdote in which the chant was used in a non-mocking way. For the sake of correctness and completeness, I think it's worth acknowledging that there is a larger context to this type of playground chant and that the primary cultural function of such chants is not merely for bullying.

Perhaps the reverting editors are concerned that adding the qualifying language somehow downplays or whitewashes the racist origins of the chant or the genuine experiences some children have had who were in fact mocked using it. But I don't think there is cause for such concern. Again, the revised sentence retains all the information from the original sentence, including the fact that the chant is racist and has (in some cases) been used to mock children. 172.91.107.147 (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed revision

[edit]

Current version: A 2005 Pop Culture Encyclopedia of the Late 20th Century, mentioning it among "fifty well-known jingles, jump-rope rhymes, and singsong parodies that we kids chanted", lists it as "'Chinese, Japanese, dirty knees / Look at these' (Point to your tits.)".

My proposed version: A 2005 Pop Culture Encyclopedia of the Late 20th Century mentions it among fifty well-known kids' chants as "'Chinese, Japanese, dirty knees / Look at these' (Point to your tits.)". The breast part alludes to promiscuity.

My version is better because the other version uses too many quotations and commas. It's way too clunky. Conciseness on Wikipedia is always preferred as long as we don't cut any significant details. Also, as a reader, I had no idea what "Point to your tits" even means without any context. The author's lack of critical distance sounds like original synthesis from user Sandstein. The meaning of this chant is perfectly understood without this clunky sentence. 63.73.199.69 (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Saying "The breast part alludes to promiscuity" sounds like editorializing. And I don't see how quotation marks (which are certainly appropriate when directly quoting a source) make the sentence "clunky." That said, I do wonder about the accuracy of the source. I wasn't able to find any corroboration for the claim that you're supposed to "point to your tits" when you say "look at these." Other sources suggest that you're supposed to either mime lifting up your shirt (as if exposing breasts) or pinch the front of your shirt into fake nipples. 172.91.107.147 (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "Point to your tits" claim comes from Pop Culture Encyclopedia of the Late 20th Century book. It's on Libgen if you want to take a look. Also, please cite your sources for mime lifting up your shirt or pinch your shirt into fake nipples. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:1CE3:E212:F82D:4B3D (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what I wrote carefully. 1 quotation is fine. 2 quotations in a same sentence is clunky. In the end, you seem to agree with me except the "The breast part alludes to promiscuity" part.
There are 2 solutions to this. Solution 1: delete "Point to your tits" part because readers like myself have no idea what does it mean without any context. Solution 2: keep my edit. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:1CE3:E212:F82D:4B3D (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what part of the phrase "point to your tits" you don't understand. Every word in that phrase seems pretty straightforward to me, especially when it immediately follows the phrase "look at these." Do you think people don't know what pointing is, or do you think people don't know what tits are? That said, I'm not crazy about the phrase "point to your tite," and I think there's probably a better source to use that that "Pop Culture Encyclopedia." Note that the chant is presumably performed mostly by little kids, and little kids don't typically have "tits." An example of a source referring to pinching one's shirt into fake nipples (rather than pointing to one's breasts) is in the Zaloom essay that is cited in the article: "They pull the tops of their blouses into two little tent shapes to mimic small breasts..." 134.69.212.211 (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me completely. Let me rephrase it this way, what does the act of pointing to your tits signify? As a reader, I don't get it without any context. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:1850:9245:B082:62CE (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, tits just mean breasts here. Even little kids have tits. I don't think size matters here. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:1850:9245:B082:62CE (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Even little kids have tits?" No, they certainly do not. Breasts are a secondary sex characteristic forming at puberty. 172.91.107.147 (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The breast article disagrees with you. Breasts get enlarged during puberty. They were always there even at birth. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:8004:F0A9:9F15:52DB (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Kids don't have "tits." Please stop. The word "tits" nearly always refers to developed female breasts. Although overweight men are sometimes said to have "tits" in a derisive way, it is not generally accurate or appropriate to use the word "tits" to refer to the undeveloped chest area of a prepubescent child. I think it would be worthwhile to find a source that doesn't use the word "tits" in that way. It's not like the cited "Pop Culture Encyclopedia," which is some random book by a single (and not particularly noteworthy) author is some especially authoritative source. Maybe we should just use the Zaloom source, which is cited elsewhere in the article, mentions children pinching their shirts into mock breasts. 134.69.212.211 (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Breasts are a secondary sex characteristic forming at puberty" -> after this sentence is proven to be false. You changed your argument to tit means developed breast. No, it doesn't. The burden of proof is on you, buddy. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:9513:CD94:5D08:514B (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is all moot, sadly. Please provide a definition from a dictionary to prove your point. My dictionary says tit means a woman's breast. It says nothing about fully developed or not. Your opinion is only your opinion after all. The dictionary backs me up. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:9513:CD94:5D08:514B (talk) 09:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"My dictionary says tit means a woman's breast." In that case, since a prepubescent child is not a woman, your dictionary actually supports NOT using the word "tit" to refer to the chest area of a child. Thanks for the clarification. 172.91.107.147 (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ops, you got me. It's not universal by any means. Some dictionaries simply put tit's definition as breast. It's semantics at this point. Admitedly, people often use tits for teenagers or older. However, that doesn't change the definition of the word "tit". People can use the word in whatever way they want lol. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2D67:29DB:D924:746D (talk) 21:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with using multiple sources on the same topic to gain different perspectives. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:9513:CD94:5D08:514B (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there's a problem when a single source is given undue weight or when a source does something incorrect and inappropriate like referring to children's "tits." In any case, I've modified the sentence so that the description of the breast-related gesture more general and doesn't rely on the word "tits." This improvement retains all the important information, so I don't think it should be objectionable even to the pro-"tits" editor. The improvement also has the added benefit of accommodating the other gestures that have been used (besides just "pointing to your tits"), such as children pinching the fronts of their shirts into mock breasts (as described in the Zaloom source). I've also added a citation of the Zaloom source to the sentence. I expect this will satisfy all parties. 172.91.107.147 (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think tit = breast (developed or not). I do not object to your change though. We're good here and can move on from this topic. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:2D67:29DB:D924:746D (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese,_Japanese,_dirty_knees&oldid=1248139156"