Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Minor questions about the intro

The current intro is as follows:

"Many people believe that the Asian fetish is a form of racism and sexism against the Asians and/or Asian-Americans subjected to this fetish. Conversely, others, both Asian and non-Asian, see it as a false, racist, and unfair label which is applied indiscriminately to criticize and destroy all Asian female/non-Asian male relationships"

Why is it necessary to specifically point out that both Asians and non-Asians see the label "Asian fetish" as being unfair? Both Asians and non-Asians also believe the former statement that the Asian fetish is a form of racism, but that isn't specifically pointed out in the above paragraph. Would it be possible to either delete "both Asian and non-Asian" or else include that phrase in both sentences to even things out? Otherwise it sort of sounds like only Asians believe that the Asian fetish is a form of racism which is not the case.

Also, would it be possible to tone down the language of the second sentence to something more like "...see the Asian fetish as an innaccurate label unfairly and indiscriminantly condemning all Asian female/non-Asian male relationships"? I am not trying to give one POV more credit over the other; I partially agree with both personally. However, I feel that the two POV sentences are slightly incongruous in terms of language (i.e. the first sentence doesn't say something like "...racism and sexism against Asians, demeaning them and dehumanizing them, degrading Asian women to the point of sex objects")

Sorry to nitpick, but just wanted to discuss. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drenched (talk • contribs).

I have no problem with both of the edits you want to make, and I especially agree with your first point. You asked why it was necessary. The answer is simply that it's not necessary. It's unfortunate but this article has been inundated with editors that would rather write an article attacking people who believe Asian fetish to be an important issue, or write an article explaining how Asian fetish does not exist, rather than making it a good and NPOV article. Hong Qi Gong 06:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The introduction should either state "Asians and non-Asians" believe in both views or not have this information. The addition of the "Asian and non-Asian" clause was specifically added to remind users likeUser:Heaven's knight that not only white men consider the concept divisive and discriminatory.

I think the removal of the word racist would improve the introduction as long as the word inaccurate is added. Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:Etiquette advises not calling other users racist, but it is not a statement about specific users. The term racist is considered insulting to most people and could cause offense. It should be removed even if the word "inaccurate" makes the viewpoint loose precision.--Dark Tichondrias 06:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

As the term "racist" in the article does not refer to specific users, it does not violate Wikipedia:Etiquette. The word is there because sources cited believe Asian fetish to be a racist tendency. Dark Tichondrias's logic would seemingly imply that we should remove the word "racist" in all articles that use it to describe something. Hong Qi Gong 06:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I never said Wikipedia's rules dictate the removal of the word racism in this section. I said Wikipedia has formed guidelines for etiquette. These guidelines suggest not calling other users racists. Since these guidelines were formed by a community's standards, they can be considered to represent a majority viewpoint. I believe etiquette, regardless of formal Wikipedia rules, should be instilled within this particular article, so people who support the Asian fetish's existance do not become upset and make personal attacks on the article's talk page.--Dark Tichondrias 06:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But what does that have to do with the word "racist" in the intro? You said yourself that it does not refer to specific users. Hong Qi Gong 07:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The word racist in that sentence does not refer to specific users, but I do not want users to make personal attacks which might increase with the word's inclusion.--Dark Tichondrias 07:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. But that does not justify removing "racist" from the intro. What you're suggesting would imply that we should not have the word "racist" to describe anything, in any article. Hong Qi Gong 15:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so would this be an acceptable rewrite of those original two sentences?

"Many people believe that the Asian fetish is a form of racism and sexism against the Asians and/or Asian-Americans subjected to this fetish. However, others see the Asian fetish as an innaccurate label unfairly and indiscriminantly condemning all Asian female/non-Asian male relationships."

Drenched 17:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's fine. It's to-the-point and balanced. Hong Qi Gong 18:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the first sentence cannot have the word "many", since the opposition's sentence does not have a word suggestive of numerous support. The first sentence cannot have the words "racism and sexism" because the reason for removal of racism in the second sentence also applies here.--Dark Tichondrias 19:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Either both sentences say they feel the opposition is racist or none of the sentences say the opposition is racist. This is an issue of maintaining a neutral point of view on the article.--Dark Tichondrias 19:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then is this acceptable to everyone?:

"Some believe that the Asian fetish is a form of racism and sexism against the Asians and/or Asian-Americans subjected to this fetish. However, others see the Asian fetish as a form of reverse racism, indiscriminantly condemning all Asian female/non-Asian male relationships." Drenched 20:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That's okay.--Dark Tichondrias 21:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

All right. I changed it.

Also, I was looking through the history pages and found this definition:

"The term Asian fetish refers to sexual stereotypes associated with Asians, especially Asian women. It is a neologism that may appear in three contexts:

1. To denote pornography, the subjects of which are Asian women, often in stereotypical costume or situations, and to describe Western men who seek this form of pornography;
2. By Asian American civil rights activists and authors to describe a form of racism and sexism against Asians and based on stereotypes about Asians; and
3. As an academic term in postcolonialist literary and philosophical theory, referring to the racial fetishism of Asians in the western world."

which I thought was quite good: clear, precise, and well organized. Or at the very least, better than the current "The term Asian fetish refers to a concept created by Asian American man named David Henry Hwang to label the attraction between some non-Asian men and Asian women." which is not nearly as informative in the various aspects of the term. Why was this definition deleted originally, and would anyone be in favor of restoring it? Thanks. Drenched 21:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The intro was problematic on a few spots, and I've re-worked it.

1. Asian fetish does not describe the attraction between non-Asian men and Asian women, but the attraction of non-Asian men to Asian women. And this is only mostly true. It has also been used to label some non-Asian women's attraction to Asian men. And it is arguable that Asian men can't also have Asian fetish themselves.
2. There is nothing to say that David Henry Hwang "created the concept". But arguably, he is the first one to be able to use the term in a public format.
3. "others see the Asian fetish as a form of reverse racism" - this sentence does not make sense. It says that Asian fetish is reverse racism. Firstly that doesn't make sense because I think the intent of the claim is that the usage of the term is "reverse racism". Regardless, it does not counter the claim that Asian fetish is racism. An opposing POV here would be a claim that Asian fetish is not racism and sexism. Saying that some see the usage of the term is racism, while relevant, does not counter the original claim. The subject in dispute here is whether or not Asian fetish is racist and sexist.

Good points! I think the intro is improved now. (I think it's safe to say most people who use the term "Asian fetish" in every day life don't think of David Heny Hwang when they use it; I'm glad he's out of the definition). But do you think it would be a good idea to explain

"Some believe that Asian fetish is a form of racism and sexism against Asians and Asian Americans subjected to it"

a little bit more? i.e. Asian women may be subjected to unreasonable sexual expectations/demands because of the stereotype associated with the fetish, or exoticized and objectified because of it etc. (I know I've been called a China Doll more than once!) I think it is explained more thoroughly in Sheridan Prasso's book. Otherwise people might wonder how especially being 'preferred' in a fetish is a form of discrimination, in a negative sense. I just thought it'd be good to explain that statement up front instead of leaving people to fish through the article for an answer. Drenched 04:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is elaborated upon in the body of the article. The intro does not need to be excessively wordy. It should be to-the-point. Hong Qi Gong 04:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I brought it up because the following sentence: "However, others disagree with this assertion, and believe that Asian fetish is essentially harmless, and that the use of the term to describe one's sexual preference for Asian women is a racist way to indiscriminantly condemn all relationships between Asian women and non-Asian men." This sentence is basically a reiteration/summary of that POV present throughout the body of the article. I feel that my previous point (the detrimental effects of Asian fetishism towards Asians) is already poorly/not thoroughly enough explained in the body of the article, and could use maybe a one line summary in the intro a. for balance b. just to concisely say what the point even IS since its explanation is sort of all over the place and difficult to make complete sense of in the article itself in my opinion. Drenched 04:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, what do you propose we add to the intro? Also, if you think the body of the article does a poor job of pointing out the detrimental effects of Asian fetish, then maybe you could edit it to make it better. But remember, whatever you add need to be sourced very well and opposing views need to be presented because this article is controversial. Hong Qi Gong 04:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, just a short addendum to the sentence explicitly detailing how/why Asian fetishism is racist/sexist would be great in my opinion. It need not be lengthy or too cumbersome. I would love to add to the article because I feel that currently it is hardly balanced and doesn't go into the details of manifestations of Asian fetishes (movies, sexual myths about Asian women [e.g. "slanted pussy"], mail order brides, Bangkok etc.) and its negative repercussions enough before it tries to deconstruct it, argue it doesn't exist, and argue its racist to use the term. But I think I ought to lurk in discussion more before making substantial content changes to the article. Drenched 01:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

How about this, change this sentence:

• Some believe that Asian fetish is a form of racism and sexism against Asians and Asian Americans subjected to it.

to this:

• Some believe Asian fetish to be racist and sexist against Asians and Asian Americans because the attraction or sexual preference is based either partly or wholly on race or racial stereotypes.

Hong Qi Gong 02:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good. And also, I think the article already looks much better than it did a few days ago. Thanks! Drenched 04:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it is done. Hong Qi Gong 19:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-Asian women who are attracted to Asian men

It seems like almost all the content of this article addresses Non-Asian Men who are attracted to Asian women. How come the opposing situation is barely addressed if at all? Just because it does not appear to be as prevalent doesn't mean that it's not a topic worth addressing and discussing here! --69.216.136.163 08:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

disambig page

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the disambiguation page be at Asian fetish and this page be at something like Asian fetish (sexual preference? --Lukobe 22:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I basically modelled it after China and China (disambiguation). The other three references on the disambig page do not have articles. And I don't know about the coctail, but both the band and the magazine's names are references to Asian fetish the sexual preference. Basically when someone searches for "Asian fetish", they should get this page because it's the most prevalent use of the term. Hong Qi Gong 03:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I like what has been done to this page recently. The article is now starting to actually make some sense.Bethereds 11:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the disambig page shouldn't exist at all, as the other links are red (this falls under a G6 in WP:SPEEDY.). If those articles are created, then you can put back the disambig page, but I think they shouldn't because they would never survive an AfD. But that's my opinion of course. --ColourBurst 16:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree!!!Bethereds 00:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV warning discussion

I put a lot of effort into improving this article over the course of about a week an a half, and most of what I added that was backed up with verifiable and reliable sources has been removed. The reasons given seem petty and pretextual, and always made to slant the article in favor of the asian fetish activist bias. This has happened to numerous other editors before me who have also been scared off by the tiresome and tireless persistence of these activists. By omitting this information and citations, this has been made into a less-good, less-encyclopedic article. It also gives a certain impression of the scope of "Asian fetish" that reflects this agenda. I don't have the time to waste putting it back, having it taken off, putting it back, arguing over niggling objections, having it taken off when I appear to be away, etc. These activist editors know who they are; they seem to have infinite amounts of time to spend on this article as well. Unless they somehow manage to work the reliable sources (as reliable as any of the sources they use) I and others before me cited which discuss "Asian fetish", then this article must be considered NPOV. Logoi 22:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the article is balanced and NPOV right now, with no irrelevant information that belongs in other articles. And I and others have worked hard to make it NPOV, away from the POV state it was in. --- Hong Qi Gong 22:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You and a few other editors took out tons of useful and pertinent information because it didn't conform to your ideas. Please put it back. Otherwise, I will continue to maintain that the article is NPOV. Logoi 22:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That information was irrelevant. This article is about a sexual attraction, not about interracial relationships. --- Hong Qi Gong 22:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Logoi, if you want to maintain that the article is NPOV, then I totally agree with you. It is fair and balanced and gives air to controversy. Maybe you meant to say that you will maintain that it is POV! Anyway I have to agree with --- Hong Qi Gong that the most common point of contention seems to be that this article condemns interracial relationships, when this is clearly not the case.Bethereds 23:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You've been saying this for a while User:HongQiGong. (That it's ONLY about sexual attraction and NOTHING else.) Back it up. Obviously you can't because this is not the consensus view. Also you remove stuff that has to do with sexual attraction when it doesn't suit your views, like the movie "Yellow Fever" (incidentally a synonym for "asian fetish") which was about sexual attraction by white males for asians as seen from the perspective of an asian. Logoi 23:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Is that what this is about? Put back the movie if you feel so strongly about it. Despite the name, that movie was about Asian men complaining that they can't get Asian women. Have you actually watched it? There is nothing in that movie about having a sexual preference for Asian women. But it's not a big deal. Put it back in if you like, I won't remove it. --- Hong Qi Gong 23:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That's only the most recent example. Practically all of my sources I spent hours finding and carefully citing have been removed, and they specifically used the words "asian fetish" and have some discussion of it or implications for it.

As you know, Yellow fever is a synonym for asian fetish. The movie depicts a blonde white guy who only seems to hit on or date asians, including the narrator's sister. The movie asks: "Why are the White guys taking all our girls?" Its implicit answer: white guys with an asian fetish prey on our innocent sisters who are mesmerized by their white qualities. It explores how this White-Asian attraction works. It shows asian women being awed and impressed by a white guy who can say Ni-hao-ma with a bad Chinese accent. In short, it has everything to do with exploring the stereotypical "asian fetish" on college campus situation from the perspective of an Asian guy who has trouble with women.

But this is just one of about 30 examples of citations which make the article measurably better, but which I don't want to spend all of my free time in life defending. Unless and until enough of this material is put back, I'm going to insist on keeping the NPOV warning in there. Logoi 23:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Logoi, you're acting as if you feel that comedic film was a documentary. It was a joke! It was joking criticism of the people who complain about Asian girls going for White boys. It wasn't about the White guy's attraction to Asian women. He was (in this movie) taking advantage of the film's Asian women, who had an exaggerated attraction to White men which isn't Asian Fetish at all, but quite the opposite of what we are talking about on this page. What we saw in that film was trying to discover what was up with the "White fetish". Anyway put the film back up, because that was funny. I would not have seen it if it were not on this page.Bethereds 23:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Bethereds, I don't agree at all. But whether our movie reviews coincide is irrelevant. What is not irrelevant is that this has something to do with Asian fetishes. All of the sources that have to do with asian fetishes should receive some treatment in this article, which doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be agreed with or a particular position has to be taken on it, but at least it should be pointed to in some fashion. To purposefully exclude sources that deal with "yellow fever" or "asian fetish" on the grounds that they are irrelvant to an encyclopdia article on the subject is in my opinion destructive editing, and in this case it injects a specific POV (which happens to be yours and Hong Qi Gong's that it ONLY means attraction and NOTHING else.) Logoi 00:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This article defines Asian fetish as a sexual attraction to Asians. That film was about a sexual attraction to Whites. I can't dumb it down any more plainly than this, but I digress. I don't know what sources were deleted but I trust that they were removed because they had nothing to do with what this article is about. While Asian fetish may mean other things, for the purpose of THIS ARTICLE, it means a sexual attraction to Asians. For its other meanings, start a new article, then create a disambiguation page.Bethereds 00:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Bethereds, you are something of a troll with the personal attack "dumb it down" as if I needed dumbing down to understand your point. I am not going to respond to your supercilious, sophomoric, and insulting manner. Logoi 01:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't intended to be a personal attack. If you took it as one, I apologize. I should have said "I can't explain it any more simply," or "I can't state my opinion in any more easily understood terms." My point was that the film in question has nothing to do with this page other than that its title is an accepted slang for Asian fetish, and that the film itself jokingly stereotypes Asian females (and admittedly White and Asian males too). If you really want to put that film back in, then go ahead. As a matter of fact, I will, because I didn't even know it was removed. I'm trying to make this as not personal as possible. Everyone has their biases and when dealing with controversial topics sometimes people overstep boundaries that they shouldn't in order to get more of their own bias into the discussion (or in this case, the article). Now you can't claim that the people who maintain that there is such a thing as an Asian fetish and that it can be harmful are the only ones guilty of this. This is why this article was such a mess, because the editors are split into two factions. Over half the article is criticism. Parts of the criticism were even put in there by ME! Anyway we all want a better article that actually examines or explains the Asian fetish rather than a page which argues with itself over how people use or invalidate the term to front their agenda. That amounts to finger pointing.Bethereds 01:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Those that maintain that the article is POV, I highly suggest you take the time to read the article. Starting at the intro:

• However, others disagree with this assertion, and believe that Asian fetish is essentially harmless, and that the use of the term to describe one's sexual preference for Asian women is a racist way to indiscriminantly condemn all relationships between Asian women and non-Asian men.

And then there are opposing views all throughout the article, not to mention an entire section just dedicated to the criticism of the term. The kinds of content we had to get rid of were contents that were either irrelevant, or that made the article POV. What we have now is a balanced and NPOV article. --- Hong Qi Gong 23:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This dispute is about omission/exclusion not about balance in the things that are already there. Please do read the wikipedia policy on NPOV. In other words, the bias creeps in from the omission/exclusion of much material that ought to be cited and/or summarized in this article. Logoi 23:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, firstly, like I said, if you feel that strongly about the movie, then put that link back in. I won't remove it, even though my point remains that the movie is about Asian guys not "getting" girls. Secondly, what other sources are you exactly talking about which you feel are so important to the article, and have been removed? To the best of my knowledge, we've only removed the stuff that are irrelevant.

And not to sound hostile - but please don't say that I'm just editing the article according to my bias. That's a strawman argument and I could say the same about your own edits. The only thing I can say to that is that I disagree, and that I'm making the article better. --- Hong Qi Gong 23:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

My complaint is that pertinent sources discussing this issue are being excluded. An encyclopedia is supposed to be inclusive, not exclusive. You can't just say that this article or source about "asian fetish" is irrelevant since it doesn't conform to ones personal definition of asian fetish. (If you go through the history of the article you will see that there have been numerous sources that should have stayed in the article.)

What is most frustrating about this article is that people like myself find all this stuff about asian fetish on the web and elsewhere, and then it is removed as "irrelevant" (not just relocated to a new article.) This is what I mean about bias, I'm sorry if it sounded like a personal attack, it was more a statement about editing for exclusion. Logoi 00:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Find a version of the article with what was deleted, create a new article, copy, paste. DONE! @^_^@ Bethereds 00:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to do this work. I don't have time for this kind of debate. The people who exclude stuff should put it back. My only contribution to this article will be to keep the NPOV warning on it until this work is substantially completed. Logoi 00:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I didn't remove anything that didn't later get put back in. If someone who removed the portions were to make an entirely new page, what would the topic be? Wouldn't the person need to have a vested interest in that part which was removed? Would you REALLY be okay if I were to take all of the criticism portion of this article and put it under Asian Fetish (criticism) That might actually serve both factions better.Bethereds 02:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Logoi, no problem, I never thought that it was a personal attack. Just please, no more POV-because tag with trollish comments - and I apologise for making my own trollish comments with the tag.

If you look into the sources that discuss Asian fetish as a harmful thing, you'll see that they do not attack interracial relationships, nor are they about interracial relationships. And if you look into the sources that criticise the use of the term, you'll see that the criticism is that it is used to attack interracial relationships (something that is also covered in the article). The definition is not just some "personal" definition of Asian fetish. It comes from sources on opposing views.

But again, exactly which sources have been deleted which you feel are relevant? --- Hong Qi Gong 00:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

--- Hong Qi Gong I know you want to make this a better article. I think one has to take the policy that if something from a reliable source discusses "asian fetish" or "yellow fever" it deserves at least a mention of some sort or another.

When I was editing the article two weeks ago, I quickly went through the history of the article to see what had been done (not specifically looking for sources) and found that the sources included seemed to fluctuate. For example, if a statement was made about a source that someone didn't like, it along with the source was removed. The sources seemed to discuss asian fetishes. (And, I'm not talking about sources from the german guy or about general ill-effects of inbreeding).

With respect to my own edits there were numerous articles removed, one group that stands out were the sources that were worked into the paragraph about supposedly humorous articles about the asian fetish published in the Yale Daily News and the Havard Crimson. These were two major incidents surrounding the asian fetish, at least as large to the asian community as the Princeton incident last year. Did the princeton incident cause people to take to the streets and protest? These did, and they were excluded. Logoi 00:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, look, unless I actually see the links you're talking about or the relevant part of the article history, I really can't tell if I would agree or disagree with you, nor can I explain myself to you if it was actually me that removed it. If it was linked in a paragraph about something off-topic, the source could have been removed because the paragraph was removed.

Now, I remember you found a number of articles from Yale Daily News, which you posted here in the Talk page, and not the article itself. The Talk page had been archived. Is this[1] what you're talking about? If so, no need to worry, Talk pages are often archived when they become too big. Check here[2]. Everything you post still exist in an page's history, even if a Talk page was not archived. Nothing you've painstakingly found was ever truly lost. ---

Hong Qi Gong 01:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This is perhaps the worst article that I have ever seen in wikipedia. Did someone really believe that Asian Fetish is Not Innocent is a NPOV of view headline? That whole section is a mess anyway really disorganized. Then under critisisms of Hwang someone just wrote out his/her opinion "David Henry Hwang argues that the Asian fetish exists because he has heard non-Asian men say "Oriental women make the best wives", but Asian women might actually make good wives." This paragraph is a writers POV without even a pretext of citing "critics of the theory" or "some experts" Joel s 05:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary?!

Edited to at least indicate that UD is not an authorative source, I personally don't think it should be referenced at all. Icewolf34 20:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is a mess

I've added a weasel words template, the article as it stands is an almost incoherent selection of random facts and 'arguments' with no clear internal direction. The "Controversy" and "Criticisms" sections especially are completely unreferenced and filled with weasel terms like "most people" "many x", etc. Criticisms is 3 paragraphs long of possibly-controversial and possibly-POV opinion material without a single cite except of an incidental statistic. How is this even remotely encyclopedic?

Attempted rewrite

this article is indeed a mess, I have made a few content changes for the parts on synonyms of the term Asia fetish but for now I am trying to restructure the page without adding any new content. Hopefully a more sensible structure will allow this page to be improved substantially... does anyone have any thoughts about the rather odd section at the bottom without any sources? NickCwik 21:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Testosterone Section

Apologies for revert user:Mr Phil but your additions go directly against the result of a vote held on this page in February 2006 which decided that these contributions were not relevant to the title of this article discussion and were too pov to include. I appreciate you have made some effort to write on this topic but we must abide by the will of the community as a whole. At the time of the vote there was also substantial argument as to whether the comments should be considere vandalism. Please do not recreate these changes without discussing the issue on the talk page, would be happy to discuss if you wish. NickCwik 10:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you tell me what is factually wrong with the additions? Mr Phil 11:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not factual accuracy, but that the edit violates WP:NOR. It is clearly speculative, and it draws on a wide range of "facts," synthesizes them, and uses the synthesis to propose a novel explanation or interpretation. This is a clear NOR violatin. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

And this is not true for the rest of the article? On which original sources is the whole article on the "Asian Fetish" based? The statement that Whites on average have higher levels of testosterone and that testosterone influences masculinity is no original research I have conducted, but has been determined by independent university-based researchers I cite. Now name me the scientific researchers who have researched the other sections of the article. The testosterone section is the only part that does not constitute original research.

e.g. the claim that media portrayals of Asian women are responsible for the Asian fetish is a clear violation of NOR, as is the section on crimes, neither are sourced, while the testosterone section is massively sourced from scientific, medical sources. Mr Phil 21:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

OMG I can't believe you are STIL at this Mr. Phil. The community voted on and decided to remove that ridiculous testosterone section way back in February. And here you are adding it back in again. I am removing it.OneViewHere 22:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

For reference, here was the original vote that dealt with the deletion of the testosterone section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asian_fetish/Archive_6#The_role_of_testosterone. Also, Dr. Phil, I remember you were the racist German user who claimed that "Jews are trying to control Wikipedia". If you try to reinsert that racist section, I will escalate this issue to the Wikipedia Admins.OneViewHere 22:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That was the other German guy, who added the anthropological stuff, not me. The only racism here stems from certain Asian American male users. Mr Phil 23:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You were the one who tried to have this entire article deleted unless you got your way with the racist anthropology sections. And since the community voted and decided to remove those sections, your attempt to reinsert them now is proof that you are not acting in good faith. Your edits amount to vandalism.OneViewHere 23:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to start throwing racism allegations around... no matter how tempting it might be on either side. The fact of the matter is that a vote was held and the community decided that this content was (and is) not ok to be included. This stands; I strongly suspect another vote would go the same way (and having checked out every one of those sources my personal opinion is that this would qualify as original research in any case). user:Mr Phil, it really doesn't seem worth arguing further, can't we just drop it and try and improve the sections of the article which do need work? If not then it may well be necessary to take this discussion to the admins as user:OneViewHere suggests NickCwik 23:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Racism?

Laughing out loud: Thus it has been argued that Asian fetishists are racist and sexist against Asians because the attraction or sexual preference is based either partly or wholly on race or racial stereotypes.

How's that different from preferring blonde hair, a certain height, certain size of breasts, certain length of hair, and so on (I also like how attraction and affection can now be interpreted as racism)? These days you can't even get out of bed in the morning without unwittingly being guilty of racism of some sort. Is this paragraph based on something, or is it original research? If there's no source or other logical reason for it, it should probably be removed because Wikipedia shouldn't be promoting extreme stupidity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.197.136.202 (talk • contribs).

So by your reasoning, no behavier can be racist because it's just all about personal preferences, right? ie, "I don't talk to black people because all black people are thugs". Assigning certain behavior or traits to a person based strictly on their race regardless of whether it's true or not is the essence of racism.

You're also conveniently forgetting the racism that is behind the creation of those stereotypes in the first place. Stereotypes don't spring up from nowhere. They are created, usually with a grain of truth and then twisted, exagerrated, and perverted so that a minor feature becomes representative or indicative of an entire race. You're essentially ignoring hundreds of years of history and media representation.OneViewHere 23:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't even say that stereotypes are created with a grain of truth. They're created out of the skewed perception of those who propagate them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

World view

This page definately does not contain a world view. Here in China, American men are depicted as superheroes, and the american exchange students have no trouble finding girlfriends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.242.181.119 (talk • contribs)

That's not entirely relevant, but I'll second that. Western women in China (especially the blond haired ones) have no trouble picking up men as well. What's more, many Chinese women have a fixation on Western standards of beauty (tall, big eyes, white skin, high noses, colored hair, etc). Some of them go so far as to dye their hair, use skin whitening cosmetics, carry umbrellas during sunny days, get cosmetic surgery on their noses and eyes, and/or have their legs broken and refused to make them taller. I suppose this is all driven by the racism of Chinese men and their preconceived notions about Westerners, no? Namithaluver 15:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Other "race" fetish

What other racial fetish are there besides Asian fetish? Could this Asian fetish exist just because it gets the most attention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.196.222 (talk • contribs)

Isn't there the stereotype (be it entirely that or not) of Black men fancying White women and vice-versa? Namithaluver 16:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)