Talk:Kokkai Futoshi

message: The sentence including "Kokkai is the first rikishi from Europe..." strikes me as wrong, because in my view, he isn't actually from Europe. As I understand it, "Europe" doesn't include Georgia.
I'd change it to "...first rikishi from the Middle East...", except I don't know if that's actually the case either -- there might have been someone before him, from some other Middle East country that wasn't mistaken for a European one. Does anybody know for sure? CRConrad 14:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that sentence. What I was trying to say in a succinct way was that he is the first rikishi outside of the "Far East" or Hawaii or Samoa to make the top division. Having had a look at the Georgia discussion page it appears there has been some heated debate about whether it is a European country or not, and it seems Eurasian is being used as a compromise. I think of it as European. Culturally it has many connections to Europe, geographically at least a part of it is in Europe and it is a member of the Council of Europe. But I'd be interested to hear other people's views. Personally I don't think Middle East sounds right at all. Pawnkingthree 17:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I certainly consider Georgia part of Europe.  Georgia would be considered an Eastern European country unequivocally if it hadn't been absorbed into the Russian empire for so long. Middle East is a far more misleading term than Europe.  But if there is a raging debate, it might be easier to call him the "first Caucasian" (with the added plus that Georgia is in the Caucasus region...).  People might find this too "racial" and it would start another debate, but it's an idea.  (Sometime ago, I myself editted the description of Kotooshu as the first Caucasian ozeki to the first ozeki "of European birth" because I thought that sounded more inclusive.) Malnova 20:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funnily enough I was thinking of changing it to Caucasian but held off for exactly the reason you mentioned-- the use of such racial classifications is now frowned upon. Pawnkingthree 20:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except in this case, it would A) be totally accurate, even "racially", and/or B) be geographical, not "racial" -- since we're talking about the actual Caucasus. Another thing, if I may ask: So where are you guys, Pawnkingthree who "think[s] of it as European" and Malnova who claims "Georgia would be considered an Eastern European country unequivocally if it hadn't been absorbed into the Russian empire for so long", where are you from? Because I certainly don't agree with either of those sentiments -- but I'm beginning to wonder if I'm being a bit too parochial here -- being a European myself, and all. CRConrad 22:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm English.Pawnkingthree 23:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. So then my opinion is my own! :-) (I mean, it seems to be based on something else; this seems not to be some parochialism I'm partial too just by being European. And that's good to know.) CRConrad 07:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, if you also agree that in this case, Caucasasian is an apt usage, let's go with that, and we can hope no one has a problem with it's usage.  Malnova 22:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me.Pawnkingthree 23:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yep, great, thank you. CRConrad 07:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: As a follow-up to the above discussion, the lead was changed to read "European" in this edit from 2012 which escaped my attention. Then it was changed to "Central Asian" by another user a few days ago. I am restoring "Caucasian", based on the consensus reached here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  European/Caucasian again