Talk:Yellow Peril

Request for Comment

I removed what I considered to be irrelevant material in the Sexual Fears section. I provided justification for the changes in on this talk page, tagged my edits, and have observed wikipedia etiquette to the best of my abilities.

Chas._Caltrop continues to add this material back into the article, does not provide justification, and does not engage in discussion about, just keeps reverting my edits.

I am requesting other editors to please comment on this issue.

Thanks for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tensegrity (talk • contribs) 23:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Update as of Sep 17, 2019 Chas._Caltrop continues to revert my edits to restore the reference to an inconsequential, unpublished, pseudonymous short story, referenced in a single, non-peer reviewed paper for an academic conference and possibly found at "The Erotic Mind-Control Story Archive". Based on non-response to this request for comment, it seems there are not enough active editors of this page to comment/assist in the matter. Well, I'm done. IMO, this article's quality is incrementally worse off for it, but I don't care enough to pursue this any further. Wikipedia is as wikipedia does. Chas. Caltrop, you "win". Congratulations. Tensegrity (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

After looking into this, I don't think this material is appropriate, and agree with its removal. The main source is this:

• Thompson, Tim "'The Incomprehensible Body': Representations of Asian Femininity in Modern Western Literature" pp. 2007–2024, in Papers for the Conference Western Images of East Asia Exploring the Critical Issues 14 April 2009, Waterloo: University of Waterloo, 2009.

it appears this was added in good faith several years ago. Other than WP:CIRC junk, I cannot find anything online which even mentions this conference, or this paper, nor can I find anything on the credentials of the author. I've look through Worldcat, Google, Google Scholar, JStore, the Waterloo website... and found bupkis. Of course I could've just missed it, but it's odd that it's so hard to find. An offline source can be used, but it still needs to be verifiable, and I cannot find any strong indication that this exists, much less a way to verify it. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that it's unreliable, but it's a big red flag that this is undue, and I have a hard time seeing this justify a subsection with three paragraphs.

The other source used was this one:

• Stoneman, Rod (8 November 2014). "Far East Fu fighting: The Yellow Peril – Dr Fu Manchu and the Rise of Chinophobia". The Irish Times. Retrieved 4 January 2015.

This doesn't mention anything about this specific story. It appears it was originally added to support an aside about the larger topic, but this is WP:SYNTH. Somehow this mutated over the years to be attached to a statement which is not at all supported by the source. This is obviously unacceptable for many reasons.

The final source cited for this section was the story itself, which is also not usable (by itself) for many reasons.

Even if we accepted the sources, this one opinion from an obscure academic ten years ago wouldn't necessarily belong at all, much less in this depth. For these reasons I have removed the section. Grayfell (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

A reply

Dear Colleagues

Thanks, for your efforts, but your final, dismissive contradiction: "even if" communicates your deliberate choice to ignore the source, because you just don't like it, and, as you said: "I might of missed it" . . . so it ain't true? Again, personal opinions are insufficient reasons to delete substantiated text. Perhaps, it is time to move on, because personal distaste for the subject matter interferes with your choice to abide the Wikipedia rules, regulations, and guidelines about sources.

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Have you, personally substantiated this text? If you cannot answer the substance of these issues, we can take this to WP:RSN or another noticeboard. As I said, one source doesn't appear to exist, or is so obscure it cannot be verified. The other source doesn't support the attached comment, making it completley inappropriate. The third source is a primary link to a self-published work of fiction. Grayfell (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply to an obvious Edit War challenge

Dear Colleagues

How many edit-war trolls does it take to force-start an edit war for Prof.-Dr. Big-time Somebody, two years later? Let it go, guys; you've won the point, and betrayed yourselves with jingling coins, bad-faith language in your personal-attacks, and the forced deletion of substantiated text that you just don't like. I shall await and then follow up.

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, anyway... Based on comments by Chas. Caltrop on that editor's talk page, it appears to me that this specific issue is resolved. If there are any further issues, an admin noticeboard is the next likely step. Grayfell (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

The sexual fears had been raised in the UK by campaigns such as "The White Slave Market" aimed at changing the laws of young women and prostitution. This used racism to pressure the passing of anti-prostitution laws and raising the age of consent.
An example of the sort of book covering this subject
https://archive.org/details/whiteslavemarket00mackuoft/page/n5 194.207.86.26 (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

This section was started specifically to discuss a specific edit which has already been addresses. If you have a new proposal, I recommend starting a new section.

The above source from 1914 might be good as a primary source for research on this topic, but we cannot publish original research. Wikipedia generally attempts to summarize reliable secondary sources. If a source explains the connection between this campaign, or this book, to Yellow Peril as a concept, we could use that source to expand the article. Grayfell (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The "Western perception" section is misleading

In it is says: "Most of the victims of the Boxer Rebellion were Chinese Christians, but the massacres of Chinese people were of no interest to the West, who demanded Asian blood to avenge the Western colonists killed by rebellious Chinese natives.[25] In response, Great Britain, the U.S., Imperial Japan, France, Imperial Russia, Imperial Germany, Austria–Hungary, and Italy formed the Eight-Nation Alliance, and despatched an international military expeditionary force to end the Siege of the International Legations in Beijing."

Ok, Japanese people are Asian. If the Europeans supposedly wanted "Asian blood", they would not make a alliance with a East Asian nation like Japan if it was truly a racial issue going on as that part of the article is trying to imply. What else in this article is wrong. 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:C1C0:30F2:5700:2A29 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

"Japanese people are Asian" is just another way of saying "I have a black friend, I can't be racist!" Saying they wouldn't make an alliance with an Asian country is ignorant. Wait until you hear about Realpolitik! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:5163:1200:0:0:0:F378 (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Engaging, informative

, useful and comprehensive article. Some style fixes are still needed in places. Zezen (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Christian von Ehrenfels

Delightful fellow, but alas his nutty program got small attention outside academia and mostly adverse attention inside. Seems to me his presence here can be trimmed to a paragraph. I do hope additional more widely respected advocates of similarly silly views can be found. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Yellow Peril in Ancient Greece: Removing uncited info from the lede

The lede previously stated that the Yellow Peril "originated in the Greco-Persian Wars (499–449 BC), between Ancient Greece and the Persian Empire; centuries later, Western imperialist expansion adduced East Asians as the Yellow Peril". The problem is that neither of the two sources cited for this mention ancient Greece or Persia, they both focus on the 19th Century phenomenon (the second does trace some of the rhetoric back to the Middle Ages, not ancient Greece). I have edited the lede to actually reflect what the cited refs have to say, this also brings it in line with the information presented in the rest of the article.Weatherboyyy (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Accidental faux pas - collapsing

Apologies for my error, Chipmunkdavis. I had seen it on other Talk pages, so thought it was okay.

I do not think I can archive. Is it possible for you to do? I would like to be able to use this Talk page, but it's just too unwieldy. Again, sorry for my poor understanding. 49.177.30.125 (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Think I did it. Hmmm ... how do I get the link to the archive page to show up? Someone might revert me before I work it out! 49.177.30.125 (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem, the archive looks like it's showing up to me. Best, CMD (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

First paragraph contains nonsense

"As a psycho-cultural menace from the Eastern world, fear of the Yellow Peril is racial, not national, a fear derived not from concern with a specific source of danger or from any one people or country, but from a vaguely ominous, existential fear of the faceless, nameless hordes of yellow people."

Sorry, I don't know what a psycho-cultural menace is, and the only other reference to that in the article doesn't explain what it is. It's also a weird enough jargon term that it has no business being in a summary. The phrase "racial, not national" serves no purpose in that sentence, and saying what something is not is weird. Someone was obviously either 1) copying from another source, or 2) trying to show how erudite they could be. Either way, it should be fixed. Ken Arromdee (talk) 10:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)