|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Category talk:People from Asia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
What do we have here? I believe it is a most unnecessary and vaguely racist category. I motion to delete it. 
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:56, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
- Well it was to tidy up the Asia category, which was a jumble of places and people. It's not racist at all to say someone is from somewhere. racism would be using some derogatory term for asians, no? I am going to get round to doing People from... categories for more places, unless people think it's a big mistake. Totnesmartin 15:59, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
- I would just say to be cautious what you mean by "Asia", the "orient" etc, and then keep it consistant. Generally, Americans group so-called "middle easterners" into groups that Europeans traditionally make 1) Asian, 2) African and 3) Arabian. Americans tend to make Pakistan "middle eastern" cause we don't know any better - oh yeah, and pokistan people speak that moslim language, and they tend to make Iraq and Iran central to the Middle East, which isn't how most of Europe sees the map. I don't know which is more correct, but it always is an issue in my home. (married to a Frenchman of Vietnamese descent...)--
En attendant Godot"«Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form. V.Nabokov» 16:08, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
- I was thinking of the geographical Asia rather than a cultural area. Geography is easier to define and categorise. The middle east, meanwhile, is more diffuse - I've seen Morocco listed as a Middle East country, even though it's further west than Britain and France. And as you say with pakistan, the eastern edge is just as hard to define. I'd avoid making or adding to a Middle east category. Totnesmartin 16:33, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
- It's racist in the sense that it attempts to classify people based on their ethnicity. And, following your statement regarding the original purpose of this category, it has been made obsolete by Category:People. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:29, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- I think we have differing definitions of racism - I don't think it's racist to say someone is from somewhere, but I do thinks it's racist to call them inferior/dangerous because of their place of origin or their appearance, and this category isn't doing that. Also C:People from Asia (and the others when I get round to them) will be subsets of C:People, which has already been criticised for being too general and unhelpful. Totnesmartin 07:31, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- I think it's racist to utilize race in matters where it is entirely irrelevant. And I will oppose any others you make along this line. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:18, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- So you'd better question Category:Jews, then? You let it pass the other day. Why question this and not that? And I still say "from Asia" isn't a race. I am not utilising race with this category. Totnesmartin 13:55, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
- I agree with you TM. Categorization is not racism just like evolution is not Nazism. It's what you do with the categories that leads to racism. Some people are proud to say they from where they come, it's what gives the world its diversity.
ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 14:49, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
- It's obviously not racist to say somebody comes from Asia. It's like saying that a category about famous citizens of the USA was racist. As others have mentioned it's only racist if you imply there is something inherently inferior (or superior) about being American Asian, British, European black or white. On the other hand, I do rather question the need for this category (and some others which have appeared recently) do many visitors really use these categories?--Bobbing up 15:07, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
- Now you're just complicating the issue. Why didn't you say that first? ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 16:44, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
- I created the category because I hoped it would ease navigation by having useful, boring categories based on geography, history etc, and also a few RWish/lulzy ones
when I get boredas I think necessary. I have no idea who uses the categories, if anybody. Totnesmartin 17:42, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
- I created the category because I hoped it would ease navigation by having useful, boring categories based on geography, history etc, and also a few RWish/lulzy ones
- Now you're just complicating the issue. Why didn't you say that first?
- It's obviously not racist to say somebody comes from Asia. It's like saying that a category about famous citizens of the USA was racist. As others have mentioned it's only racist if you imply there is something inherently inferior (or superior) about being American Asian, British, European black or white. On the other hand, I do rather question the need for this category (and some others which have appeared recently) do many visitors really use these categories?--Bobbing up 15:07, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
- "Jews" and "People from Asia" are not comparable. "Jews" refers to practitioners of the religion. It is no less relevant that our category for Christians. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:39, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
- This category is completely irrelevant to RationalWiki. What are we—Wikipedia? What next, Category:People from Chicago, Illinois? Category:Category:People involved in aviation accidents or incidents? Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:39, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
- I agree with you TM. Categorization is not racism just like evolution is not Nazism. It's what you do with the categories that leads to racism. Some people are proud to say they from where they come, it's what gives the world its diversity.
- So you'd better question Category:Jews, then? You let it pass the other day. Why question this and not that? And I still say "from Asia" isn't a race. I am not utilising race with this category. Totnesmartin 13:55, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
- I think it's racist to utilize race in matters where it is entirely irrelevant. And I will oppose any others you make along this line.
- I think we have differing definitions of racism - I don't think it's racist to say someone is from somewhere, but I do thinks it's racist to call them inferior/dangerous because of their place of origin or their appearance, and this category isn't doing that. Also C:People from Asia (and the others when I get round to them) will be subsets of C:People, which has already been criticised for being too general and unhelpful. Totnesmartin 07:31, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
- I would just say to be cautious what you mean by "Asia", the "orient" etc, and then keep it consistant. Generally, Americans group so-called "middle easterners" into groups that Europeans traditionally make 1) Asian, 2) African and 3) Arabian. Americans tend to make Pakistan "middle eastern" cause we don't know any better - oh yeah, and pokistan people speak that moslim language, and they tend to make Iraq and Iran central to the Middle East, which isn't how most of Europe sees the map. I don't know which is more correct, but it always is an issue in my home. (married to a Frenchman of Vietnamese descent...)--
