Talk:Eyes That Kiss in the Corners

"(East) Asian eyes"
In this edit SL93, primary article author, reverts this edit by an IP address, "Changed "Asian" to "East Asian" to be more clear to non-US readers and more specific regarding the topic of eye shape." on the grounds that "sources don't say East Asian". I'm afraid I agree with the IP. Which is a rare exception; normally I'd be all for following the sources, and I'd even be somewhat tempted to give a bit more latitude to the main author of the article. But the IP has it right here. I did a quick search for sources that say "East Asian eyes" in respect to this book, and couldn't find any. But we should still use those words.

The issue is that Wikipedia is supposed to be written for English speakers in general to understand, and for a noticeable number of the world's English speakers, possibly even a majority, "Asian" does not necessarily mean "East Asian", as is the overwhelming majority in the United States. This is an American book, and in the United States the majority of Asians are East Asians; if you refer to "Asian eyes", it's pretty clear that you mean "East Asian eyes", see that link (between Chinese, Filipino, and Southeast Asians, most of which do have these eyes; see Asian Americans). But in the United Kingdom, "Asian" - British Asian - basically means "South Asian" (Indian, Pakistani, etc.), which do not have these eyes. And in India, or Pakistan, or Israel, each of which have a noticeable proportion of English speakers, if you refer to "Asian Eyes", you get -"huh?" - because there the inhabitants are Asian, and also mostly don't have the eyes referred to here. It's pretty clear that this book is talking about the Epicanthic fold, but as this is a children's book, it doesn't use those words (I'd be surprised if it used any words of 4 syllables especially Latinate ones).

If people prefer, we can use the words Epicanthic fold here. But if not, I agree with the IP, and we should say East Asian eyes, at least in explanation. Even though the sources don't use the words. This is basically a translation issue, and just as if we could and should write in English even if all our sources used non-English, or length in meters and/or feet even if all our sources used cubits, here we need to explain that the "Asian eyes" referred to here are specifically "East Asian eyes". This is what Ignore all rules was invented for. --GRuban (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I will readd it. My issue is no matter how obvious something is, I didn't want to be on the receiving end of an original research claim. SL93 (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ! The WP:IAR path is a difficult and dangerous path, but occasionally we must tread it. --GRuban (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)