Talk:Chinese, Japanese, dirty knees

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

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)

• Reference for "is a racist playground chant in English-speaking countries, used to mock children of Asian origin." is added. Thanks for the reminder.University Being Constructed (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

  University Being Constructed, thanks for the source (https://doi.org/10.4000/transtexts.1011). But it only reproduces the chant, without commenting on it further. We therefore can't use it as a source for the assertion in the lead. However, in my view, no such source is necessary: the entirety of the article body and its sources establish the lead's statement that this is indeed a racist chant. Sandstein 16:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for your checking. Yes. I agree with your point about the requirement of reference here.University Being Constructed (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

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)

Family guy

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

Opening sentence is a bit misleading

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)

Proposed revision

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)

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)