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)
 * , 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
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)
 * , 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)
 * , 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)
 * Thanks for the 3O., 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)