Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 11

An explanation

There may be some people that have an obsession with a certain ethnicity.
but
- maybe some people are tired of being stuck into one category, and want their children to be a little more immune to this racialism, you know what I mean?
I feel bad for people who are angry about this, but I think people need to look more objectively and with a bigger perspective, and look away from the past and towards the future, as difficult as that might be.Spettro9 05:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

>>>"obsession with a certain ethnicity.
but
- maybe some people are tired of being stuck into one category"

-You're an idiot if you actually believe this. You actually think biracial people are easily accepted into either categories?

Title of article is too POV

This article is better than it was, but is still essentially a piece of propaganda, apparently aiming to stigmatize interracial and intercultural relationships with pseudopsychological nonsense. The use of the perjorative word "fetish" alone is wholly inappropriate, has no scientific basis, but pretends to. In logic, this fallacy would be called "begging the question", as its phrasology already assumes and implies a conclusion. Far better would be to encyclopedize this subject into an article called Asian Interracial Outmarriage or something like that. Soda80 01:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Not in academic vocabulary

I think this article has great balance to it, but to assert that, "is not an accepted part of the vocabulary of any academic or scientific discipline," is false. I do not see any way to determine this definitively, and I would argue that a large volume of writing in sociology on the subject in essence makes it part of the vocabulary of the field in a connotation neutral sense, the same goes for psychology or other ethographic fields. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.135.96.222 (talk • contribs).

Right. That we haven't found it in any academic or scientific vocabulary does not mean that it is not a part of those vocabularies. Absense of proof is not proof. Also, nowhere in the article is there an attempt to assert that the term is part of any academic or scientific vocabulary. I am wary about making any non-minor edits though, as this article is very tightly balanced, and a lot of non-minor edits could upset a balance that took a long time to develop. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. When you create symantic constructions that have little basis in truth and rooted in generalities that do not exist or for which there is no proof (IE: all white men who date asian women have "yellow fever" -- some odd disease that visits anyone who happens to have a relationship with an asian woman.) you are creating your own little existentialist world that is most of the time manufactured by asian men who are intensely insecure.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-06T04:32:45.

Check the sources, I did not create a "symantic construction". Also, opposing POVs are offered in the article. Plus, I have never stated that "all white men who date asian women have 'yellow fever'", so please do not make baseless accusations. And really, judging from your statement here, your bias is very obvious. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm biased? You are accusing me of having some sort of wierd fetish (or in the case of "yellow fever," a disease) - (or at least not opposing the claim) and standing by while there is simply no way to know the intentions of anyone dating anyone, let alone asian women dating white men. Obviously there are goofy men who do goofy things toward asian women. And there are plenty of goofy asian men who do goofy stuff toward white women. (I suppose they have "white fever" but we never hear about them, right?) I have great respect for the asian women I have dated. These women are always stunned and hurt when their asian male friends (mostly korean) get pissed that they are "not satisfied with their own kind." I cannot help but sometimes laugh at these men who are so incredibly obsessed with fighting this odd guerrilla war against white men. Also, Who is biased here when you have no idea who I am, what I am thinking, and what my motives are? I happen to be very attractive, successful, and enjoy dating wonderful white women, asian women, latin, or european. I greatly respect each of them for their differences, strengths, and perspectives. I will tell you that I have never in my life experienced a more odd, unfair stereotype than this bizarre "yellow fever, asian fetish" fabrication.... ::Let me be clear: I never once gave anyone -- asian or otherwise -- the right to define me. I am happy to be a white man. I have no silly "fever" made up by insecure asian men who need to demonize me to feel good about themselves.... I think the asian men who are creating this fairy tale, and asian women who support this claim (these asian women need to take a "I'm not as popular as I think I am Pill" and get a good night's sleep) need to hear this from white men categorically:

1. we are completely satisfied being who we are;

2. we never gave you the right to define us and we have no intention of submitting to your silly claim that we have some silly fever or fetish because we date some different race;

3. quit thinking you are more important than you are;

4. quit obsessing so much about us go about your business and life.

...thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-09 05:00:51

I would like to point out that the "imbalanced ratio" often gets blown out of proportion; the ratio for Asian women marrying whites to Asian men marrying whites is 2.5 :1 according to the US Census. Sometimes people who are against white men dating Asian women act like the ratio is 20:1 or something. Diego de Sequeira 14:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I understand that the term can be used to criticise interracial relationships, but I'd like to point out that this article shouldn't be about interracial relationships itself. There's already an article for that topic. Anyway, all I'm asking contributing editors to do is that if they're going to do non-minor edits like adding or deleting whole paragraphs, that they discuss first, because this has been a very contentious article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I don't disagree with you. It was just a passing comment, actually. Diego de Sequeira 01:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Other Racial Fetishes

Somebody create articles on White fetish, Black fetish, and Brown fetish so as to lend more support to the concept of Asian fetish. I don't see how other racial fetishes don't exist. Is Asian fetish the only racial fetish? Yes, probably, and because? Who knows? Maybe it's because east Asians consist of almost half of humanity (or at least in the near future). This article is kind of racist in nature, but there is strong evidence for asian fetish, especially portrayed in many American films, like Miami Vice (movie). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.153.247 (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Is Asian fetish the only racial fetish? Yes, probably, and because? Well, in the US at least, the difference between Asian fetish and other ethnic fetishes is that there is a huge gender imbalance. When you talk of blacks and latinos, there (appears) to be no real discrepancy in the male-to-female ratio participating from each race. Asian fetish is different, and indeed perhaps is only an issue because there is a strong tendency toward white-male/asian-female couplings. Normally when you talk of assimilation, as with blacks and latinos, the people get absorbed as a whole. For Asian-Americans, however, this is not the case -- Asian females are being assimilated in disproportionately larger quantities than males (the population of Chinese at least, leans slightly toward a male majority, yet you see fewer Asian males in the mainstream media than females). Everybody knows who Puff Daddy is, and everybody knows who Whitney Houston is, and everybody knows who Lucy Liu is, but how many people really recognize John Cho? And whose fault is it that John Cho is the best example that we have? Or perhaps Daniel Dae Kim, the guy on Lost, whose character is ridiculously oppressive -- but that's apparently how American writers want their audience to see Asian men, though a more accurate portrait would be that of the late James Kim. This is what makes Asians -- especially the men -- suspicious of the pattern in America's adoption of Asians. (Rightfully so? Well, that's what the debate is really about.) Don't forget also the image of Asians as being the "model minority" -- that is, the minority that quietly accepts its station in a white-dominated country and does not exhibit the kind of social retaliation that other minorities tend to lean towards. This further imprints into people's minds that they can freely pick and choose what they want from the Asian population and it is therefore ok to disregard the existence of half that population -- because, I suppose, the theory is that the sexless Asian men will back up the Scared White Man even as the white men take multiple mistresses at the Asian man's expense. The question at hand is, does the Angry Asian Man exist because of some natural discrepancy in the perception of Asian males and females in American society, or does he exist because America is controlled by the Scared White Man who fears losing his status to rivals who are renowned for a superior work ethic and intelligence (again, something which differs from other minorities -- sorry if that sounds racist but let's be real)? The increasing global, technological, and industrial power of China will, if nothing else, make this issue very interesting to watch over the next decade. Personally, I think this issue will come to a head in the US sooner than later, as more empowered Asian males come to terms with it. If the fetish bubble doesn't burst, you can expect that minority to stop being model -- don't forget, these people invented ninjas and they all know kung fu. 24.6.99.30 22:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the silly argument that "because there are more white male/asian female relationships than asian male/white female relationships when white men date asian women they have an "asian fetish" or "yellow fever." It's silly and makes those who argue this look immature. There is no correlation at all between the ratio of reltionships to some kind of proof that white men are experiencing a fetish or a fever. It's a tired, silly argument that makes no sense and has no foundation in truth. Sorry, guys. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I like this from the above rant from 24.6.99.30: "Personally, I think this issue will come to a head in the US sooner than later, as more empowered Asian males come to terms with it. If the fetish bubble doesn't burst, you can expect that minority to stop being model -- don't forget, these people invented ninjas and they all know kung fu." So what is being said here? If this myth of white men with some sort of wierd fetish dont stop dating asian women you guys are all going to put on your ninja outfits and kill us all? This gets more bizarre all the time. I should say that I am still hopeful that the intelligent asian men who are happy and insecure in who they are, (and do not need to demonize white men to feel good about themselves) will stand up and sound the alarm on this nonsense. But where are these asian men?

Well, if you want, feel free to write it. How is it racist? Against who?

"Maybe it's because east Asians consist of almost half of humanity (or at least in the near future)." This statement is racist itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.68.141 (talk • contribs)

Racism is the preference of one race over another. The fact other race fetish articles don't exist makes it appear as if asians are promoted.

In that statement, I should've said "Asians consist almost half of humanity," which is a fact. Anyways, I probably should've left it out all together. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.153.247 (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Let me help you out here. The guy who commented that it was racist is probably misreading it as "Asians are half-human". The intended meaning was that Asians account for half of the human population on Earth. It is not a racist comment, just very badly worded. 24.6.99.30 22:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with everything that's been said on either side of the argument here, but to the anonymous editor who stated that "racism is the preference of one race over another" - I have to disagree with you. From the Merriam-Webster dictionary, racism is[1]:

1) a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

2) racial prejudice or discrimination.

And many sociologists define racism as the application of power that is motivated by racial prejudice. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Egregious NNPOV

This article has a very clear anti-asian fetish bias, with both direct and implicated notions that an asian fetish is a negative thing and no alternative viewpoints are offered. While this view is valid, it is opinion and thus does not belong in wikipedia in its current form. The NNPOV in this article is so pervasive that I believe a complete rewrite is necessary. I would do it myself but I do not consider myself to be knowledgeable enough about this topic. Vonkwink 09:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Criticism of the term as well as the usage of the term is littered all over the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hong, then why did you remove an argument against the fetish? You removed my addition claiming it was completely unreferenced. Why didn't you just put a citation request like the wikipedia policy states! Perhaps you just can't handle other possible explanations! If you want references, you will get them. But if you delete what you don't agree with, there is no chance for a reference! 144.81.32.187 16:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is very contentious. Please discuss first before you add a whole new section. Besides, the references in this article itself would seem to counter your point that the term is "completely unreferenced". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I also added some material to the article before it was locked. Was that you that kept deleting it Gong? Rest assured I will be visiting this topic often. I for one will not be forced into some bizarre stereotype created by the Gongs of the world to feel better about themselves. Why can't asian men be satisfied with being asian men without demonizing white men? Do you require that we be somehow beaten down and crushed before you will feel secure? Do you not see that this war against white men completely betrays the depths of your insecurity? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Awesome. Go put that in your blog. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Of possible interest

Here is a little bit of information I came across just now that might be of interest to editors who care about this article: "The percentage of marriages between Japanese men and Western women began to rise and in 1975 exceeded the number of Western men-Japanese women marriages-- a trend that has since continued. At present [1996], approximately 70 percent of all international marriages in Japan involve Japanese men and foreign women." -- DeMente, Boye Lafayette. (1996). Japan Encyclopedia Passport Books, Lincolnwood, Illinois, p.246

I hope this is of some use. Dekkappai 03:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It'll be more useful in interracial marriage. This article is not about interracial marriage, but about a type of sexual attraction. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, HongQiGong. I see that the article on interracial marriage already includes a mention of this. However this article suggests that, beyond any normal sexual attraction to other people, which may include any number of criteria, there are actual physical anthropological reasons for an Asian fetish on the part of white men for Asian women. For example: "One possible explanation for the higher incidence of White male - Asian female couples as compared to East Asian male - White female pairings may be higher average levels of testosterone found among Whites as compared to East Asians." Well, first, apparently in Japan, the imbalance is on the opposite side. And if this physical anthropological basis for an Asian fetish were true, wouldn't the sexual imbalance be universal, rather than just in some countries? I'll leave it up to you and the other editors here though. This article seems to be a mess of several unspoken ideological agendas warring with each other, none of which interest me. Dekkappai 22:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Gong: what about before they were married? Hello? Whether they are married or not, it bursts one of your claims that has no basis in truth: that there are so many more white male/asian female marriages out there than the converse; and therefore, white men are evil and trying to exploit asian people. It's flat bizarre. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Again, please just write about your thoughts in your blog. This Talk page is for the editing of this article. This is not the place for you to complain about how you've been mistreated in your own personal life. Also, I have never in my life claimed that white men are evil and are trying to exploit Asian people. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You amuse me, Gong. OK. Then why don't you unlock the main page, and I will write my contributions there. How is that for a start? I love your reasoning here: you lock the page with hugely slanted and biased information, erasing all entries you deem unworthy and now you come criticizing me for entering my views here. You're classic, my friend. Your lack of willingness to let the other side share their views is indicative of your own insecurity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm glad I amuse you. But 1) I didn't lock the article[2], and 2) You should get concensus before you add your content to this very contentious article. Your lack of willingness to discuss before adding content is indicative that you just want to add unfounded information and twisted logic. Very telling, my friend. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"...You just want to add unfounded information and twisted logic." Wow, Gong, how'd you know my whole goal is just to add twisted logic? Why don't you enlighten me about exactly where my logic is so "unfounded and twisted." Great, I look forward to it.

And let me fill you in on something. Your "article" is so full of twisted logic, double entendres, and completely unintelligent and bogus thinking, that it's fascinating you can accuse me of it with a straight face. Funny. So you tell your little buddies to quit erasing my entries, and I'll put them in my blog. My entries were were worthy of anything up there right now, buddy. Thanks. And I have to say I'm fascinated that you are so passionate about defending content so consistently unintelligent and irrational. Congratulations, buddy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

Great. Go post it up in your blog. Thanks. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Gong. Thanks for the continued intelligent arguments. As always, Cheers.66.8.204.121 05:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Biological Basis

There can be no discussion of sexual preference without some information about the biological and evolutionary factors. HongQiGong has taken it upon himself to delete without discussion. There is an extremely strong evolutionary basis for sexual selection! It would be useful to include this in any discussion involving it. Please write a yay or nay to show your support. 144.81.32.187 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There was never a source discussing specifically Asian fetish in the biological context. That section was original research strung together by unrelated articles. There has also been past discussions on that section and it had been taken out a long time ago. But regardless, please discuss before adding an entire section. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I am discussing it! There is a need to address the biological factors involved in the fetish. There I said it! It doesn't matter if some hair-brained theories were removed before. This still needs to be addressed. I don't see any scientific sources on the fetish at all! The DSM's definition of fetish is for inanimate objects. Should we then remove the whole article because there is no good research cited? Most of the sources are either humorous or editorials. Perhaps we should rename the article "Asian Fetishes in Popular Culture", and remove any claims of scientific validity. So either permit the science or remove it. Do not pick and choose. 144.81.32.187 16:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

So is your issue that the article is poorly sourced, or that we need to add a new section discussion biology? Which is it? If you think that the article is poorly sourced, I would think that the solution is to work on sourcing it better, and not adding a new section that is poorly sourced and basically original research. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You know which it is, read the first sentence of my discussion! My point is allow the science or remove any scientific claims from the article currently. Why is it that the current content of the article can remain even though it is porrly sourced, but the biological stuff cannot remain poorly sourced? I agree with you: the solution is to work on sourcing it better, not removing any and all biological claims, as you have done! Allow poorly sourced biological material to remain, giving it a chance to be sourced better, or remove all the poorly sourced material, which would be most of the article! I mean look at reference 4. WTF? That is a internet forum! 144.81.32.187 17:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That hardly justifies editors putting in yet more poorly sourced materials. Again, the article is very contentious. I would prefer that we discuss the addition of so much material before we actually insert it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should remove the poorly sourced material. I will commence tomorrow. 144.81.32.187 17:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't disrupt Wikipedia in order to illustrate a point. Please register a username to assist communication. -Will Beback · † · 18:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You can also discuss exactly what it is you would like to add to the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole article ignores human biology that leads to certain racial trends in intermarriage. Moreover, most of the present information stems from a group group of Asian supremacists, primarily from the website modelminority.com. Their intention is to cast a negative light on White-Asian intermarriage through articles such as this. Their information is poorly sourced, the only sources are other Asian American "activists" who also oppose White-Asian sexual relationships. Biological reasons are ignored in favour of racist conspiracy theories, about the mass media etc. --Mr Phil 04:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr Phil, I am surprised to find you still trolling this article. You and the other German poster long ago tried to twist this article into a discussion on racist anthropological theories. I believe that other German poster was eventually banned for his actions, but here you are still. The first line of the article states that this article is not about healthy interracial relationships nor is there any opposition to "white-asian relationships" in general. This article is merely referring to a *type* of relationship. The fact that you so quickly dismiss all effects of culture, racial stereotypes, and mass media show that you are not the least bit interested in discussin this article and are only here to promote your racist anthropological theories. Anybody here can scroll back to through the discussions to see what you are all about.OneViewHere 04:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr Phil, I have reverted your additions as you have repeatedly tried to add these SAME passages to the article countless times before. And each time, the Wikipedia community by CONSENSUS decided to remove those passages. The fact that you are trying to add those same passages again amounts to vandalism. If you persist in doing this I will notify the Wikipedia Admins.OneViewHere 04:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record in case anybody needs proof of Mr Phil's vandalism, please look through the article's edit history. Look at the October 9-06 entries and then look way back to Feb-06. It's been a full YEAR that this person has been trying to re-add those same passages.OneViewHere 04:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the Talk page archives contain discussions on why that section is removed. I don't even know where to begin to point out how inappropriate that deleted section is, least of all the use of Steve Sailer as a source. The guy is a plain racist. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Steve Sailer is a well documented racist. Also, this user Mr Phil once tried to quote an article from a magazine called "American Renaissance" to support his racist theories. American Renaissance is a white supremacist magazine. Interestingly enough, there is a Wikipedia article on Steve Sailer that documents his racist leanings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Sailer OneViewHere 05:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

--Mr Phil 07:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I just can't support the racist agenda you try to promote here --Mr Phil 07:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr Phil, I hardly think you are in a position to accuse other users of being racist when you quote Steve Sailer and quote from a white supremacist magazine. You also tried to re-add content that was already decided by the Wikipedia community to be removed from this article. Your attempts to re-add that content is vandalism and I will be notifying the Wikipedia admins.OneViewHere 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

According to some recent leftist definitions of racism, anyone who believes in the existence of human races/stirpes/taxa is a racist. So asking for biological reasons for the attraction of Caucasian men by Mongoloid women would be racist. So isn't HongQiGong a racist asking for those explanations according to these definitions ? Or hypocritical because despite asking for it he helped to suppress the real anthropological explanations in the past? 80.138.178.141 11:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That would only be hypocritical of me if I was a "leftist" who believes that "existence of human races/stirpes/taxa" is racist. But I'm not, and I don't. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This user that goes by the IP address of 80.138.178.141 is the same German user that originally tried to add the racist anthropological content. It is clear that this unregistered user is acting in conjunction with Dr. Phil to vandalize this article. This unregistered user has been known to make racist comments in the past. He claimed once that "Jews control Wikipedia". That comment is in the discussion archives of this article and can be viewed by anyone. Please refer to the discussion archive #6 where a vote was taken to remove this racist anthropological content.OneViewHere 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As a 'neutral' observer (I stumbled upon this article and its current dispute through a watched user talk page, quite by accident, and I have no interest whatsoever in the subject matter), I am astonished to look at the page history and see the submissions/reversions by Mr Phil. The intonation is of a blatant racist and inflammatory nature. I am happy to mention this as there was a call for yay or nay at the top of the post. 'Nay' to Mr Phil, I'm afraid. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 23:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have previously done some editing on this article and periodically check back to see whether any progress has been made on it. While I have made a concious effort not to get involved in the long-running argument on this, on this occasion I feel obliged to comment. Mr Phil I, like others here, was present during your last visit to these pages; you were shot down then and I'm glad to see it's happening again. Seriously man, get over it and take your reprehensible views elsewhere. NickCwik 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please actually read the article

I really wish that some of the editors who come to this article screaming all kinds of foul would actually spend some time to read the article as it currently stands.

1. In the intro itself, it is already mentioned that some believe that this term is used to condemn interracial relationship.
2. In the terminology section, it is already mentioned that Asian fetish is not recognised as a real fetish by the medical or psychological community.
3. There is actually a whole section on the use of the term to condemn interracial relationships.

In other words - your complaints about this term is already covered in the article. Just read it instead of rushing in here to tell people how much you hate this term. We don't care. Go write about it in your blog. This Talk page is about the editing of this article, not about the term itself. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"We don't care. Go write about it in your blog." Nice, Gong. Now that's the freedom of debate and ideas. The reason that white men stop by this incredibly out of balance wikipedia entry is because you and others have chosen to define us according to your own twisted obsession with making us look bad because we have happened to date women of other races, including asian women. Sorry: we don't bow to your definitions of us, and we do not allow you permission to define us. I would also freely support asians as they fight against the bias that exists against them at times in the white world. But I will not give up truly who I am, and accept that i have some "asian fetish" to make you feel good about being an asian man. Again, sorry.

And as far as I can tell, you all have a little army that go in and immediately remove anything you deem "not associated with the topic." Your judgments here are painfully and obviously biased. Don't pretend to be neutral or biased. It sounds silly.

I am just floored that sometimes asian men do not feel good enough just as asian men; they need the humiliation of white men to feel good about themselves. This is simply a recapitulation to colonial oppressions of the past (as horrific as that was), is it not? Asian men still do not know who they are without white men. But don't blame me for this colonial submission. I'm urging you to stand up and be who you are without me. Quit trying to demonize me to feel good about yourself. You are good enough already whether I am successful with asian women or not. It doesnt matter. Ignore the whites who are idiots and live your lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-09 15:49:28

I think you suffer from a case of "not everything is about you" syndrome. This article *clearly* states that it does not refer to all interracial romances, nor does it make any kind of blanket claims as to the behavior of white men. So what exactly are you objecting to? From what I can see, you object to the mere mention of the POSSIBILITY that these types of dysfunctional relationships can exist. According to you, this is all in Asian men's heads and has no basis in reality. If this article doesn't reflect the reality of what your interracial relationship is, then it's NOT ABOUT YOU. So why do you care?OneViewHere 18:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I suffer from "not everything is about you" syndrome OneViewHere? Funny: we white men want one thing: for you asians to quit focusing on us when we sometimes date asian women. There are lots of odd asians out there laser-focused on this, and some of the asian women need to take a serious look in the mirror and recognize that the reality is that all balanced, healthy white men are in fact NOT obsessed with them just because they have black hair and dark eyes. Sorry, ladies: that is a myth.

Quite frankly, we just want you all to leave us alone and go live your lives. But you do not. You keep bringing up this issue that because sometimes we date asian women, we are diseased and odd. I for one refuse to accept your definitions of who I am based on your need to demonize me. Now: if you are one who recognizes that there are also some bad white male/asian female relationships and also some great ones, then guess what? That means that this relationship type is just like every other interracial combination: normal. With every single possible combination of relationships there are good relationships and there are bad. Why the white male/asian female variety is so incredibly over-emphasized is bizarre, and it points to roots in the hearts of asian men. Don't get me wrong: I know lots of great asian men who are strong and secure and have no problems dating any race. These are the ones who couldn't give a care about who dates who, and have no problems dating hot women from any race including white women. But the asian men who are deeply insecure for no fault of white men are the ones who I address these words to. My message is this: learn to love who you are without making up silly reasons for asian women to somehow rebel against another race—white or otherwise. it's silly and betrays insecurity that is unmistakable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-09 22:57:49

What makes you think this article is about you??? The very first line of the article states that it is *not* about "love or interracial relationships". If you are a black/brown/white/yellow/red person who happens to occassionally date Asian women, then nothing in this article remotely applies to you. Neither is this article an "attack on white men" as a black man or woman can easily have an Asian fetish as well. You seem to be suffering from a lack of reading comprehension, as there is nothing in this article that backs up any of your claims. I will repeat, everything is not about YOU, or white men. Nor is this discussion forum a platform for you to air your imagined persecution complex. If you want to debate the merits of the article, then you can start by talking about specific QUOTES.OneViewHere 04:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What makes me this article think it is about me? Nothing in this article remotely applies to me? Can you say, with a straight face, that almost all of the time people mention "asian fetish" or "yellow fever" that they are NOT speaking about white male/asian female relationships? And, the first line of the article is silly. How can this entire entry NOT be about interracial relationships? What ELSE is this topic about??? The term "asian fetish" is — by very definition — a discourse on how non-asian and asians INTERRELATE. And also, I never said my argument is exclusively about white male / asian female relationships. The problem here is that I made that clear in the article, but one of your friends insisted on continuing to edit those comments out.

Yes, once again, I will repeat: This article is *not* about healthy normal interacial relationships. This article addresses a certain KIND of relationship that is based on cultural stereotypes. You seem to think that this article is making blanket generalizations about ALL interracial relationships when in fact it is NOT. That much is made clear in the very first line of the article. The article also mentions CRITICISMS of this concept, therefore it is fairly balanced. --OneViewHere 01:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

You're classic. I never once said the article was about "healthy normal interacial relationships." It is about what you folks consider a disease, this "asian fetish" — according to you, and some bogus male asian author, the impetus of sexual violence against women for God's sake! (you'll never hear about the opposite of this: asian men who have a fetish for attractive white women. You know why? Because I am perfectly OK with myself without demonizing asian men.) So yes, buddy, you are right when you say the article is NOT about healthy interracial relationships. Again: the first line of your article is nonsense. There is no way to de-link an interracial relationship with the content of this article. If you are talking about an "asian fetish," then it is only logical that you are talking about the interplay between your perceived interracial villains who — according to you — inflict pain on their victims, as you so gallantly point out in your "balanced" article.

Do me a favor, Mr. Balanced and Fair: if you're so passionate about balance, why don't you dig up some good examples of how what you term a "fetish" can simply be "attraction" to the rest of the world. You are so determined to make attraction between white males and asian females evil and ugly that you've created a term to demonize it and institutionalize your insecurity. Now find some good examples of white male / asian female relationships. That's when I will consider you balanced and fair. Until then, all sensible, balanced, attractive and confident men — of all races — will take issue with your nonsense.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-15 04:26:06

And I love this about "my imagined persecution complex." You really must be living in a box. Either that, or you're more interested in winning an argument than simply recognizing reality. And yes, I'll start debating specific "quotes" in the article when you lose some paranoia and un-protect it. Thanks.

I did not write-protect this article. The Wikipedia admins did because the article was being vandalized by some racist users who want to turn this article into a race-based eugenics article. There is *nothing* preventing you from having a conversation about specific points or quotes from this article. The fact that you have not done so proves to me that you are just here to complain with little to back it up. And by the way, please follow Wiki guidelines and sign your discussion entires. --OneViewHere 01:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually this is about the best summary of the subject matter I have heard so far. Racism cuts both ways and right now this article is all about blaming Whitey. --Mr Phil 02:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the present editor's as well as Gong's racism and bias. --Mr Phil 11:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Phil, as a white supremacist, you really have no ground to stand on here. This article is not a platform for your racist eugenic diatribes. The removal of your racist content was not decided by the editor, but by a consensus vote of the Wikipedia community.OneViewHere 18:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You know Mr. Racist, go f*ck yourself. --Mr Phil 04:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you need a time out. Perhaps you and your anonymous German friend should go into a corner and have a nice leisurely conversation about "how the Jews control Wikipedia". Or you can go read some more Steve Sailer or American Renaissance (magazine) articles. Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously when you quote from a white supremacist magazine? OneViewHere 05:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOT#SOAP. WP is not a soapbox. If you want to tell the world about any injustice, please write about it in your blog. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

To call Mr. Phil a White suprematist was the primary insult. You cannot label good scientists who do their best racists . We are the ones who love and appreciate foreign races despite your campaign against us, while e.g. many "angry Asian men" are envious of Caucasian-Mongoloid relationships,while many Jewish scientists only feel comfortable among Jews while calling people like us racists because we criticize their leftist programme to weaken the West (s. Kevin B. MacDonald). Undeniable fact is that the dominant Boasian "anthropology " has a leftist political agenda.And that means "Trotzkyist", not to confuse it with healthy Chinese Stalinist ethnocentrism (Sinocentrism). E.g. the works of Boas (the Jew) and Mead (the lesbian) e.g. have been discredited even in mainstream media.- The only scientific part of this article has been the testosterone and the anthropology section based on international capacities who were not influenced by the counter-cultural revolution. We are honest. We don't glorify anything. We see the unflattering minor intelligence of gentile Caucasian people compared to Eastern-Asians and Ashkenzim Jews that are big disadvantages in competition. We acknoledge the unflattering physical masculinity of Caucasian women and especially Nordic women making them unfeminine viragos. NO white suprematist does that.Those viragos were vulnerable to feminism which they absorbed with great pleasure leading to the Caucasian people's death. The essence of the virago: the wish to penetrate ,not to be penetrated.It is a universal law (Max Hartmann) which started 1 billion years ago .So, the femininity and fine delicacy of the women from the Palaemongolid race are the real cause of the "Asian fetish".Additionally, we see the the permanent ignorance of intelligence as a key factor for success and well-being. In Europe, the weak politicians tell the people that there is no connection between intelligence and the pursuit of happiness, while millions of capable and industrious Chinese academics are waiting to overtake America and the West .As one result Jews will be driven out of the technological sector in America in the next 40 years, just as intelligent Djain Indians have nearly driven them out totally from the Antwerp diamond market comprising 20 billion dollars per year e.g. And finally, there is the virago Sheridan Prasso, the amazon in the fight against the "Asian fetish", who hasn't yet recognized the biogical source of her (sexual) uncontentedness dicussed in detail by us.-- If this world cannot separate any more between truth-finding and personal interests, then the stability of this world is sincerely in danger. It is mainstream today to attack the West promoted by the New York intellectuals, the Boasians, Jacques Derrida's deconstructionism, the falsified psychoanalysis, the virago feminists and the androgynous leftists.The Christian occident has been the cradle of modern art, universalism, technology and philosophy. No-one has achieved as much as a relatively small number of geniuses and highly-gifted in Western Europe. Tendentiously , Western Europe has only a small sense of ethnocentrism which is contrary to universalism. Nowhere in the world foreigners are welcomed as much as in Europe, by politicians and by the people . But foreigners are nor welcomed by the Japanese, black Africans , Jews or American Indians .Those people will always stay particularist obviously. And please understand now this big bitter irony of fate that the peoples who achieved the most, were tolerant the most are overrun and destroyed by this particularist mob now irreversibly.If this does not change , a final global atomic war of an Eurasian alliance against this perfidious plot seems inevitable.The Shanghai treaty (Russia, China, Iran) points to this direction.- You don't have to fear us. You should fear yourselves and the pity you bring to many people, in this case the pathologization of the "Asian fetish". A lot of hapas are depressive because many Eurasians are still pathologized and discrimintaetd against. Just read some web blogs. 80.138.170.240 16:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for summing things up. Mr Phil

Wow, keep talking, my anonymous German friend. You are doing more to discredit yourself than anything I could say.OneViewHere 04:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There is something rotten in the state of Denmark.80.138.170.240 16:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, jeebus. Again, WP is not a soapbox. Please take it somewhere else. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalized version kept

The heading Asian_fetish#Anthropological_explanation_of_Asian_fetishes is completely fucked up. Could an admin remove this part:

"Regarding the article "nonanoic acid" (pelargonic acid: It is also used as an organic herbicide (brand name: Scythe) which degrades rapidly and poses no known contamination threat. It acts by disintegrating the cuticle (shiny layer) of leaves. Since it acts only on leaves and tender shoots, it will not kill plants that propagate by runners: poison ivy, English ivy, black locust, wild grape. A systemic herbicide is needed in cases of such plants. A mixture of pelargonic acid and glyphosphate (Round Up, et al.)has been recommended. The first removes cuticle and the latter penetrates to roots. Neither alone erdicates English ivy. Glyphosphate also degrades within 48 hours.

Thanks for your consideration.

Thomas J Cantwell cantwell@bvunet.net" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mackan (talk • contribs) 16:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Ah, Prof. Cantercunter , the grey propagandist ridiculing Hartmann's botany, je suis enchanté!80.138.185.243 10:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This article has been hi-jacked by leftist Boasian pseudo-scientists suppressing empirical data.This edit war lasts for 3 years now. And as long as our carefully researched anthropology section is not included, this edit war will go on endlessly.80.138.185.243 10:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your racist anthropology section was removed by a consensus vote of the Wikipedia community. If you continue your attempts to vandalize it, then the Wiki admins will just have to leave the article write-protected forever. OneViewHere 21:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Racist according to one leftist definition is a believer in the mere existence of races.Do you adhere to this definition ? A further aspect of Asian fetish : Asian-gentile affection is pathologized and ridiculed by prominent Jews like Sheridan Prasso and Ari Shaffir whereas the shiksa theme ,the attraction of a Jew by a gentile woman is presented as unproblematic in the media (cf. e.g."The Jews of Prime Time",Edmund Connelly, The Occidental Quarterly, Fall 2006).If Asian fetish is pathologized, I will start to scientifically pathologize Marilyn Monroe's and Anna Nicole Smith's Jewish lovers , too. By the way , they are described to have ruined her , Stern is even suspected to have something to do with Anna's and her son's drug deaths.Equal rights to anybody. 80.138.145.204 00:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Here're a couple of good places for you to pathologise all you want - www.xanga.com or www.blogspot.com. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

On google video, there are a couple of films for you to hear from Asian girls why they prefer Caucasian men (will be added to the references by me ,e.g. video "Why Asian girls go for white guys").80.138.145.204 01:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That's great. But that's also not the topic of this article. Feel free to reference that in the article about interracial relationships. I don't know how many times I've told people to read this article. This article is about non-Asians having a sexual attraction especially for Asian people. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again. This article has an anti-gentile bias. And concerning racial fetishes wikipedia has an anti-getile bias ,too, the Jew -shiksa racial fetish is e.g. missing as mentioned before. The mass media people pathologizing Asian fetish are gentile , often androgynous leftists (Trotzkyist), leftist (Trotzkyist) Jews and Trotzkyist racial Europid viragos ,often overlapping. I have been preparing a complete list of all significant anti-AF people for you and the ethnic self-identification and virago self-identification of them (just what MacDonald did for the leftist movements of the 20th century).After that analysis ,your objections will fade.- Jews are not only mainly members of the Armenid human race with distinct physical and psychological features, they are an own human race ("Judaid" in the Eickstedt nomenclature , tendentiously depigmented and taller Armenids with an exceptional average intelligence of 115 (that means on average every Jew can attend university !) contributing mainly to the depigmentation and greater height and with further genetic a n d morphological disctinctions ).For the intra-racial and inter-racial connection between intelligence, intellectual dispositions and skin colour, height and race see e.g. the Knußmann manual, Richard Lynn and John Randal Baker.Similar as the Aethiopoid and therefore Europid (!) senator Obama, Martin Luther king was a mulatto with an over-average portion of Europid genes (more than 25 percent; average is 15 per cent in the South, 25 per cent in the North ).So the next president of the US is technically impossible to be Negrid ! 80.138.142.118 19:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Enough, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia does not allow original research. This has gone on for long enough. If it continue, I will semi-protect this talk page. If you have well sourced NPOV content to present then do so and we will discuss that, but these rants accomplish nothign. JoshuaZ 20:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please just protect it now and consider taking admin actions against these people. They're not going to stop. They were banned in the German Wikipedia already. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. These users have already stated their intent to re-add their content back into the article even after a consensus vote by the Wiki community went against them. This has been going on for a year now by these same 2 vandals. If you look at Mr Phil's user talk page, he has been reprimanded several times already by other Wiki admins for use of profanity and abusing the 3RR revert rule. The other anon IP guy has been banned by German Wikipedia. I think that is more than enough basis to ban them here too. OneViewHere 23:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Editors of this article should be ashamed of themselves

This is the only article I've read on Wikipedia that has left me truly disgusted. The editors are obviously racist losers with nothing better to do than insult other people for their choice of partners. How can a consensual relationship between two people be "racist" or a "fetish" just because they belong to different ethnic groups? Get a life (and a boyfriend/girlfriend) you sad losers. Suitsyou 01:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you must be new to the Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.26.204 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-25 01:35:17

Are people somehow missing the very first line of the article that states that the article is not about interracial love or relationships? It's right there in black and white. Mr Suitsyou, this article has nothing to do with people in relationships that just happen to belong to different ethnic groups. If that is what you got from reading the article, then I suggest reading it again.....carefully. --OneViewHere 07:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I love it. You're still insisting this nonsense is NOT about interracial relationships. You are truly trying to avoid the obvious, and it makes you look silly OneViewHere. Look at the entry that was posted in favor of keeping the article" here:

"I do believe the article implies that any man who dates or marries an Asian is accused of being a fetishist, of being shallow and living out a racist fantasy. I'mnot sure how this should be expanded upon Lotusduck 19:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

And as such, the article needs to acknowledge that not all such relationships constitute fetishism. This need not be a long statement, but the article is POV by its omission. Durova 21:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm truly looking forward to how you defend against this one, buddy. It's right there: "THE ARTICLE IMPLIES THAT ANY MAN WHO DATES OR MARRIES AN ASIAN IS A FETISHIST." Sorry, but that's horribly racist, unfair, and betrays a supreme insecurity, not to mention lack of intelligence.

SuitsYou: Ditto for me. I read Wiki a lot, and this is the first one that is completely illogical and based on unfair stereotypes of interracial relationships. Maybe it might be telling that someone other than me is disgusted at the implications of this article, huh, OneViewHere and Mr. Gong? And please, don't send us off to read the article again, "carefully." We did. For you to declare with nonchalance "it's not about interracial relatoinships," makes you sound ridiculous. So much for the (unfair) stereotype that all asians are smart. Look: an "asian fetish" is — by definition — something that implies relationships between a non-asian and an asian. You are implying that, even if those who have your "fetish" are not in relationships, that those who are -- they are also diseased and animal-like, prowling about as if to devour some innocent asian.I am the first to defend against asian stereotypes. It's time for you to defend against unfair white stereotypes. Any intelligent person knows that there is good and bad in every race. But your little "fetish rant" leaves no room for good/bad -- anyone attracted to the asian persuasion (and you all make it sound like EVERYONE is obsessed with asia -- which is a silly idea in and of itself) is bad -- EVERYONE. It's racist, unbalanced, unfair, and it shouldn't be in Wikipedia, giving a great name a black eye.

As I said before, in order for you two to sound fair, it needs to be clearly spelled out that there is a difference between a "fetish" and an "attraction." You did not respond to this. In order for you to stop offending non-asians and sounding racist you better add this. But alas, you and all your friends rallied and had the thing locked.

Again, Your lack of sophisticated analytical thinking is in plain view. Doesn't that bother you? Fascinating, indeed. And your indulgence in this silly ignorant rant about "fetishes" without making the distinction with "attraction" is noted. So much for asian intelligence. I'm terribly busy, but believe me: I'll be watching this entry until it is balanced. Computer1200 13:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, and the opinion of one editor back in December of 2005, when the article was in a completely different state, basically should be considered the paramount assessment of how this article currently is. Give me a break. Please take your time to actually read through the entire article. Right in the intro itself, it discussed how the term can be used to ostracise interracial relationships. In a proceeding section, it talks about how it is not a "fetish" that is recognised as a disease by any psychologists and scientists. And further down, there are sections devoted to opposing views. "So much for asian intelligence"? What is that, some kind of racist insult? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to laugh when I read that too. That statement was made by a user over TWO YEARS ago and the article has been almost completely re-written since then. Anybody can go back into the article's revision history to verify this. There appear to be some people here who are upset over what they feel the article "implies" as opposed to what it is actually saying.OneViewHere 21:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

To those of you who feel that the article "implies" that any and all relationships between whites and asians are based on fetishism, please point to me the line that states this. Show me where the article makes a blanket accusation against white people. Show me. As Hong pointed out above, the article CLEARLY STATES in the very first line that this article is not about interracial relationships, nor is there any line in the article that claims that *all* such relationships are based on fetish. In fact, the article devotes entire SECTIONS on oppposing views. Stop telling me what you think the article IMPLIES. Give me one line that proves your accusations. If you think the distinction between relationships that are based on Asian fetishism and interracial relationships in general needs to be clarified, then we are all open to specific suggestions. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, there DO EXIST some relationships that are based on fetishism and racial stereotypes. This articles addresses that. It does not in any way condemn or imply that ALL interracial relationships are based on fetishism and this is CLEARLY stated in the article. So maybe you guys need to start reading the article for what it actually SAYS instead of reading into it what you *think* it is implying. OneViewHere 21:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me get straight to the point here: You need to make a distinction between healthy, vital, and life-giving attractions, and your "asian fetish." The article makes NO DISTINCTION — and it should. It is offensive, racist, and unbalanced for you to not be concerned about this distinction, and your lack of concern, is disturbing. And I love how you are the final say on what this unbalanced article implys. Do I not have the right to intelligently interpret its meaning based on the fact that it is mostly aimed at me? Are you two the final Asian Fetish Article Judges and all plebians submit to you two? Don't think so. I HAVE read it, and it is out of balance. I will not stop until it is balanced.

Oh, and if you're wondering, balance looks something like this:' "As in all interracial and intercultural relationships of all kinds, there are people who can become obsessed with one particular racial profile and make it into something dangerous. But there are also interracial and intercultural relationships that, while they can be challenging, are very rewarding, gratifying, and life-giving to all. Here are some examples of both:"

Gong and OneViewHere, let me introduce you to Balance— he's new around here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 2007-02-26 09:34:46

So you think this article is "aimed" at you? What, do you think Asian women are all submissive geisha dolls with secret sexual techniques? If you do not, then this article is not "aimed" at you then. I don't know how many times I must tell you, this article is not about interracial relationships. It's about a term and the type of attraction it refers to. That is all. It makes no comment about whether or not interracial relationships are healthy or not. In fact, the only time it refers specifically to interracial relationship is when it talks about how the term "Asian fetish" may be used to criticise interracial relationships involving Asian people. You want to add your little op-ed about interracial relationships, add it here: Interracial_marriage#In_the_United_States. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Article Needs Rewriting from Scratch

Well, hey there Gong. Thanks again for wiping out all of my input in this section just because I accidentally erased something. I call that IRRESPONSIBLE AND OUT OF LINE. Seems like you're afraid of something, Gong? Maybe the fact that your argument sucks? (by the way, I have NEVER just erased something, like you always do. I always respond; i never intentionally erase material.) I just want you to understand one more time: you can be immature and irresponsibly dictate content here, but your lack of logic and intelligence as you frame this issue is plain for rational folks to see. Sorry about that. You'll probabaly erase this too, which is fine. My happiness sure does not depend on whether or not you decide to be intelligent or not. But be crystal clear Gong: you've been caught guarding a piece of crap that only betrays your insecurity and trumpets your lack of ability to think through this issue to its logical and illogical ends. It's sad. I feel like I'm living in Communist china with Cisco's huge censoring device that filters out freedom of thought very efficiently. Congratulations Gong. Have a great day.Computer1200 19:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you did erase others' comments. Just check your edit[3]. You erased Teji's comment and you inserted a comment right in the middle of mine. And nobody is taking away your freedom of thought. Xanga and MySpace accounts are free and you can write whatever you want on them. Go on then. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Gong: I agree with Teji's edits. Why would I intentionally erase his input? It was a mistake and you are not justified in editing ALL of my many additions just because of one minor mistake. Any Questions? Now do the right thing and revert to my edits if you have any integrity left at all in your fear-ridden frame.Computer1200 20:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, buddy, then revert back to where I made my comments, and correct my error, which was unintentional and a function of the fact that I am new to Wiki. Do that — or tell me how to do it, and I will do it myself. Haha. And that's cute about how you keep insisting I go write my input on blogs. Thanks, again, your so entertaining sometimes. PS: don't you see how that does NOT help your arguments at all?Computer1200 19:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Everything that I can tell you is already written here: Wikipedia:Tutorial. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You're incredible. So let me get this straight: I make a minor mistake with one sentence, and you arbitrarily erase about 30 minutes of commenting, correct? Do you call that responsible editing of this article, buddy? Do you think that I and others respect that kind of dictatorship over this article? Do you think I'll go away and let you do that any time in this century? Well, think again. This is an issue of truth here, and you will learn, Gong, that I don't take truth lightly. Now I could go in and do the very same thing as you and erase all your goofy entries that half of the time are simply garbled semantic gymnastics with no point in sight -- but I do not. Why? Because I am not afraid of what you have to say. The lack of logic is clear. So when you speak, it is good. But you seem really afraid of what I am saying for some reason. Why is that gong? Computer1200 20:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And also, feel free to erase all of this, and I will add it back each time I come back to this page. Again: you do not have the right to erase my additions like you did about an hour ago. It's completely wrong and not in the spirit of Wiki -- and you KNOW it. Remember: don't erase these comments above; I promise you I will repost them if you do. People need to know how you operate.Computer1200 20:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Just looking at the section above "What, do you think Asian women are all submissive geisha dolls with secret sexual techniques?" (HongQiGong). The problems in this article are many

1) The references are basically garbage (see #4, it is an internet forum) Wikipedia states the following about citations:

"If all the sources for a given statement or topic are of low reliability, this suggests to the reader that the content be treated with a degree of skepticism, and to the editor that the material may not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia."

And stresses legitimate material

"Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it." Which an Internet forum is definitely not!! Neither are unknown internet "newspapers."

1. 4 "Would you date an Asian girl with an Asian fetish? This is an internet forum.

http://phoenix.swarthmore.edu/2006-02-23/opinions/15869 is not a reliable source. It is from the *opinions* section of a college newspaper. Hardly a scholarly source.

http://www.punchandus.com/article/1005-fetish.html is not a reliable source (although it is in the external links section). It is a blog with the tagline "SACRIFICING OUR PRINCIPLES FOR THE SAKE OF COMEDY"

2) Fetish is a sexual attraction to objects or parts of people, not people themselves (even if they are treated as "objects" this still does not count.)

"Psychology. any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation." From www.dictionary.com

Also look at the DSM.

Fetish used in other ways does have colloquial meaning, and writing the article with this in mind is extremely important. Currently, the content does NOT reflect the title, mainly because the title is a neologism that has not had enough time for extensive scholarly research (HongQiGong, you seem smart, but Wikipedia is hardly the place for you to conduct your own research and preach your own opinions.) Either change the title to something like "The (Perils)/(Sociological Dangers) of Asian Interracial Relations," (or something like that), allow other aspects of interracial sexual attraction (namely biological explanation), or delete this article!

3) Sexual fetish, racial fetish, and commodity fetish are sourced with Wikipedia articles and there is no source that says a sexual preference for asian women is any of these. (sexual fetish is for objects, racial fetish is as unreliable as asian fetish, and commodity fetish does not apply)

Wikipedia states that "Note: Wikipedia articles and categories cannot be used as sources." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Why_sources_should_be_cited)

4) Interracial relations are repeatedly demeaned in this article:

"It is also the basis of angst for people in interracial relationships or contemplating them," Who is Erika Kim? Why is the reference [11] to someone else?

HongQiGong said above "What, do you think Asian women are all submissive geisha dolls with secret sexual techniques? If you do not, then this article is not "aimed" at you then. I don't know how many times I must tell you, this article is not about interracial relationships."

Not about interracial relationships? Look at this source:

Pang, Gin Yong (1998). "Intraethnic, Interracial, and Interethnic Marriages among Korean American Women", Korean American Women: From Tradition to Modern Feminism. Boston: Praeger, p. 134.

And these quotes:

"In colloquial usage, a non-Asian person who is exclusively interested in Asian people for sexual and/or romantic relationships is said to have an Asian fetish." Hardly constitutes a belief that Asian women are a commodity.

"the term can be understood as the attraction or sexual preference, usually of non-Asian men or women, for Asian women or men." This is not equal to thinking that "Asian women are all submissive geisha dolls with secret sexual techniques"

Which is it HongQiGong? Some dangerous, mental disturbance that leads white people to assault Asian women? Or a harmless sexual preference? You conflate the two, and equate one with the other, implicitly condemning all interracial relationships!

5) No discussion on sexual prefence is complete without a reference to sexual selection and evolution, i.e. the biological basic. Now I don't know who Mr. Phil is, or the mysterious German, but I don't care. A wacky view of the Biological basis does not preclude any discussion of one. Genetics is scientific, but Eugenics is not! Should all Genetic research be labeled false because of some wacky Eugenics movement? Of course not! The Biological basis for sexual preference needs addressing. One fact is that the Asian eye shape (often used to classify race) is so common in the world because of male sexual selection. Clearly this is pertinent to a discussion of sexual preference for Asians.

Now HongQiGong, if you have a bone to pick (perhaps you had a bad experience with a white guy), go write a blog, but leave Wikipedia to neutral points of view, or allow the opposing views in the same article. You have controlled this article like the gestapo for long enough. Either let it be, or we all must delete this article and start again. Renaming it would be a first step.

144.81.32.187 18:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1) The first source you mentioned here is used for the "Slangs" section. Firstly you need to know, I don't even know who started or added to that section. Secondly, I'm going to delete it altogether. The second source you mentioned is actually a magazine, not a blog. About Punch and Us. The specific link provided is an article by that magazine about racial fetish[4]. I'd consider that a reliable enough source. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

2) Disagree that it's neologism. Check the sources provided in the article already. Also, the article covers that the term is not a fetish in the sense accepted by psychologists. For example - "It has not been recognized as a paraphilia or fetish by the medical or psychological community." And other such texts. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Uhm...those sources are from this decade. Seeing as the term was supposedly first used by Hwang within the last twenty years for a new condition, or as a new way to refer to an old idea, it is a neologism by definition. Furthermore, "fetish" is used in a novel way, so that is enough to be a neologism.

The article has that sentence, yes, but then totally contradicts with this "Fetish in this context has been used to mean sexual fetish, racial fetish, or Commodity fetishism (viewing Asian people as a form of property)," asserting that it is a commodity fetish by adding the parenthetical "Asian people as a form of property," which is pretty NNPOV. That kind of weasel wording doesn't belong in the terminology section. Put it in a commentary section. How about "Commentary, Opinion, and Activism"?

3) Those articles are not being used as sources. It's a simple case of wikilinking. All articles should wikilink to other articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not simple wikilinking, the article also asserts that an Asian fetish is also a type of sexual and commodity fetish. I quote "Commodity fetishism (viewing Asian people as a form of property)". In the paragraph where it says "(see paraphilia)" it asserts that Asian fetish is some sort of paraphilia.

Unfortunately people are not objects, nor is a culture. Commodity fetish is out. It makes no mention of racial/people/culture fetishes. Also, paraphilia is out. It has nothing to do with fetish as a colloquialism. Read the pages for yourself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teji (talk • contribs) 21:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Furthermore, activists are not appropriately neutral sources for terminology origins, especially considering the colloquial precedent for fetish outside of the scientific community. The comments of activists should be isolated to parts of the document that are non-neutral, like "Commentaries on Asian Fetish." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teji (talk • contribs) 21:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

So what if "punch and us" is a mag? You wouldn't allow that white supremacist guy to use that argument. Don't be hypocritical, it is a comedy magazine. Use reliable sources for neutral POV. Use NNPOV for sections that clearly indicate it is non-neutral, e.g. "Opinions about the Asian Fetish", etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teji (talk • contribs) 21:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Disagreed. WP:NPOV is achieved by including different points of views, not ignoring them. Also, the article makes it pretty clear that the term is not accepted as a "fetish" as it is defined by psychologists. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

What did you disagree with? I didn't say ignore them, I said put them in a better section. Namely a section called "Commentary, Opinion, and Activism."

4) That quote from Erika Kim and relevant texts are actually talking about how the use of the term "Asian fetish" can be used to put undue pressure and guilt on Asian women. Are you sure you have a problem with this? I've clarified who Erika Kim is. And the Gin Yong Pang source is actually incorrectly used. I've provided a better source. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"how the use of the term "Asian fetish" can be used to put undue pressure and guilt on Asian women," then say that in the article. And put it in a section about negative consequences or social commentary.

Also, correct your sources. That was one example of many sourcing issues.

Also, please address my section about the edits I made instead of reverting everything like a dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teji (talk • contribs)

I could say the same of you. You didn't exactly give everybody a chance at discussion before you flooded the article with edits, did you? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the Wikipedia guide to consensus, it involves discuss the edits first. I made edits on parts that were in clear violation of sourcing. You always have the option to re-edit instead of reverting everything back to what *you* want. Perhaps someone else besides you approves of my edits. This is why you should answer to my Edits section, not just revert! So please, if you have a good reason to disallow any of the point-by-point edits I have listed below, please specifically state it there instead of remove the good edits and the bad. Nothing gets done when you act like this, reverting everything back to your desired copy, preventing progress. Address my section below, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teji (talk • contribs)

Um... Your comment here is kind of contradictory. First you say that we should discuss the edits first. Then you say that you made the edits without discussion or consensus. How about this, you discuss the edits and come to consensus first before you do the actual editing. I've reverted because we haven't came to consensus. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between edits and reverts. Edits say, "this needs to be improved," reverts say "I am not going to allow any edits to this page." The edits removed a few lines and moved a couple paragraphs. Furthermore it was documented in the edits section. Hardly cause for reverting.

5) Disagreed with adding that repeatedly and consensually deleted section that Mr. Phil and his cohorts kept adding. Firstly, it was WP:Original research that was strung together by a bunch of unrelated articles. Secondly, Mr. Phil and his cohorts also thinks that "Jews are a problem" in this world. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with this section, please take your squabbles with other users somewhere else. As I repeatedly said, their are other reputable scientifically based biologically explanations for sexual preference (ever hear of Darwin?) that apply here. Mr. Phil is out. Clearly his section must have been inappropriate, this is still not reason to revert any and all edits without discussing them. Please address the Edits section below, unless you agree with them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Teji (talk • contribs)

Who the hell is 71.175.43.242? Get a name please, and don't confuse HongQiGong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Teji (talk • contribs)

I'm not aware that Darwin wrote about attraction to Asian people. Do you have a source? Hong Qi Gong (Talk -

An article on sexual preference can only benefit from a discussion and link to sexual selection. And since opinions are so prevalent in this article, perhaps whatever Mr. Phil wanted to put in should be allowed, in the proper section of course, namely "Commentary, Opinion, and Activism."

Contribs) 21:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sourced or not, put a fact tag before reverting. Stop reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teji (talk • contribs)

Stop adding text without consensus. And please sign your comments. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The consensus process clearly states that edits go first, then consensus is made about the edits. You are creating a viscious cycle by only relying on reverting before consensus. Please start discussing the edits below, they are right there, ready for you to argue with. Please for the love of God respond to the Edits section below if you really think they are unreasonable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teji (talk • contribs)

Please, will you not sign your comments? Also, calm down. The Love of God is not necessary for editing this article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Please address the other edits or accept them. Why don't you address the edits instead of reverting? Teji 22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you actually give me a chance to read your concerns first, before you flood the article with edits you want? To be honest, you should give others ample time to address your concerns. You and I are not the only contributing editors here. But just 15 minutes after it came out of article protection earlier, you've flooded the article with your edits. Please have a little patience. Not everybody that has an opinion on your concerns has weighed in. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you revert so much? You can't read them first before reverting? [5] Some key steps for you to read: make an edit (is the first step), wait, was the article edited further? do you agree with the change? (here's the key) Think of a reasonable change that might integrate your idea with theirs. It's pretty hard to do that last step if you are constantly reverting. I have done edits I believe are reasonable. You should be reading my point-by-point reasoning before reverting.Teji 22:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is what WP:Consensus says: The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. I made a decision to change some of your edits because I do not agree with them. But I welcome discussion about them here in the Talk page. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You did not discuss NOR change them. You reverted several times. Do not forget the three revert policy. You decided to REVERT, not EDIT and DISCUSS. Please be honest.Teji 22:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits

Removed reference to sexual fetish (that page defines sexual fetish as arousal from inanimate objects or nongenital parts of the body and refers to racial fetishes as a sexual preferences)

Removed reference to commodity fetish

Quote from sexual fetish

""Fetishism" in its sexual meaning must not be confused with the original anthropological concept of fetishism or socio-philosophical concepts derived from this one, e. g. Karl Marx's "commodity fetishism". Here, fetishism names the god-like admiration of objects which has nothing to do with any sexual interests whatsoever."

The wikilinks to sexual fetish and commodity fetish are just wikilinks. They're not used to say that Asian fetish is a sexual fetish as it is defined by psychologists. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Then put them at the bottom where they belong. They do not belong in terminology. They are only related by the word, not in concept.Teji 23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed (arguably a fixation on), if it's arguable, why don't you discuss it first?

I agree that needs editing. Words like "arguably" should be avoided unless specifically used by references. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Then why revert it? Teji 22:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed irrational attachment, what the hell is that?

I believe that would be an attachment that is irrational. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem, *you* believe. You just fell into non-neutral POV. Teji 22:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed paraphilia, the page doesn't talk about asian culture or people as a paraphilia

The article talks about how Asian fetish is not a paraphilia as defined by psychologists. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Then we don't need to address paraphilia. Unless we have some section discussing what Asian fetish isn't, there is not need but simply to say "An Asian fetish is not a fetish in the psychological sense. While some may argue it is a medical condition, it is not accepted in the scientific community." I suppose you could also say "It isn't paraphilia; it is commodity fetishism; it isn't sexual fetishism...", but that list could go on. Teji 23:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The origin of the term is established, it is a neologisms formed from a colloquial use of fetish. Activists are hardly a neutral source.

I moved the activist stuff to a new section. Rename at will. But please, the non-neutral stuff is way too entrenched in the neutral stuff. It is important though, and warrants it's own section. But it cannot overshadow the neutral information.

WP:NPOV dictates that we include different points of view, and the article does that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, which is why we should put the different points of view next to each other in a section on "Commentary, Opinion, and Activism" instead of trying to mush them all together with the neutral stuff like terminology and origins.

I followed that link and copied two key paragraphs for you [emphasis added]

"In presenting an opinion, moreover, it is important to bear in mind that there are **disagreements about how opinions are best stated**; sometimes, it will be necessary to **qualify the description of an opinion** or to present several formulations, simply to arrive at a solution that fairly represents all the leading views of the situation."

"But it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to **assert facts about competing opinions**, and to do so **without implying that any one of the opinions is correct**. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view."

When you put opinions by activists in the section on terminology and origins, clearly there is going to be a confusion between fact and opinion. There are definitely competing opinions about what the activist said, but you have removed them in the past. This is why I suggest making an entire section devoted to commentaries and opinions. That way, every opinion gets its fair shake, and opinions are not used in such neutral section as "Terminology" and "Origins". Teji 22:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not revert my edits. They are reasonable. Please discuss them, and build on them.

Again had to move opinions and activism *out* of the neutral parts and into their own section.

Again had to remove "The object of the attraction ranges from specific features of specific people, to specific groups of people, to Asian culture generally. " because this is neither on the paraphilia page (which is cited, even though it is a wikipedia page) nor is it true. HongQiGong, you concede it is not a true fetish in the psychological sense, so why keep trying to put this garbage back in? It doesn't have any scientific credibility yet! Teji 22:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an explanation of how the term is used. Why do you want to move it? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Because paraphilia does not discuss this. There is no reliable source talking about a paraphilia or fetish about a group of people or culture. In fact this is wrong. You are conflating the colloquial fetish with the psychological condition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teji (talk • contribs)

Nothing in the aritlce says that it is paraphilia. In fact, the article states that it is not paraphilia. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"Fetish in this context has been used to mean sexual fetish, racial fetish, or Commodity fetishism (viewing Asian people as a form of property), as well as sexual attraction, interpersonal attraction, irrational attachment, fixation, or even cultural attraction. The only uses of fetish that have not been documented are the usual definitions of fetish as an object with magical properties, or an object or body part arousing sexual feelings that cannot be reciprocated. (See paraphilia) The object of the attraction ranges from specific features of specific people, to specific groups of people, to Asian culture generally." This whole section reeks of falseness. It is not a sexual fetish in the way described on that page. It is not a commodity fetishism (see my quote from that page above). Why cite paraphilia and say the object of attraction is groups or cultures? This is completely false. It should be removed. Irrational attachment is meaningless here, it sounds like someone just made it up. Teji 22:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you are reading it differently than I am, but that text clearly says that documented uses of fetish has applied to objects. It's saying that specifically "Asian fetish" is not a fetish as it is traditionally defined, because traditional definition only applies to objects. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sexual fetish, commodity fetish, paraphilia do not even need to be mentioned here. It is already clear that fetish here is not the psychological definition, but the colloquial one, and all three of these are about the psychological definition. That is why it should be removed. No need to "see paraphilia" it is unrelated, this paragraph only serves to conflate the true psychological fetish with the colloquial one. Wait until the academic community provides a source for Asian fetish as a documented psychological condition before building it up with big words like "commodity" and "paraphilia" which have no application here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teji (talk • contribs)

The text you quoted above specifically addresses your concern when it says that documented uses of "fetish" has only been in the context of objects. WP:NPOV states that we include different points of views, not eliminate those ones we do not personally like. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And in case you did not know, some of this text about the definition of "fetish" was inserted upon the insistence of editors who had "similar" opinions about the whole thing as you do. They insisted that the article spells out that Asian fetish is not a "fetish" as defined by psychologists. That was the whole point of much of the texts you do not like. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Then they shouldn't be in the terminology section, they should be in an opinions section. I feel separating out the commentaries and opinions (of which they are clearly many) from the facts and less activist explanations (of which there are few) is extremely important. That is why I made the new section. And I did explain this, but you just went off reverting like a madman again.Teji 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just a note: before you cry out for the love of God again for me to respond to you, please note that I'll be offline for probably the next few hours. Be patient. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Some more from NPOV

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; (there are none for Asian fetish because it is not really a fetish, it is a sexual preference or obsession at worst)

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; (there are no prominent adherents, only internet opinion pages and activists)

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. (clearly many of the viewpoints you have in here are in a very small minority)

I suggest making a section called "Commentaries, Opinions, and Activism", for most of the paragraphs.

Teji 22:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Asian fetish as a cause of crime, states only minority opinions from a journalist. This violates the NPOV above "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;"

This section needs data, facts and figures supporting crimes involving Asian fetish. Otherwise this section should be moved to a "Commentary, Opinion, and Activism" section.

Without real data, "Asian fetish as a cause of crime," seriously begs the question. This should be moved to a section called "Commentary, Opinion, and Activism" until a real information about Asian fetish related crimes is cited.

"David Henry Hwang criticises the opinions of non-Asian men in his slight," Why is this in the terminology section?

Why is "Racial Castration: Managing Masculinity in Asian America," in the terminology section? Both this and Hwang's have some specific viewpoint about the harms of an Asian fetish. This needs to go into a section called "Commentary, Opinion, Activism," because it is not related to the origin of the term, but a non-neutral viewpoint about the results of Asian fetishism.

The bottom line is that Gong has managed to patch together an emarrassing lump of unsubstantiated, arbitrary feelings and opinions into what he insists is a scientifically-based social phenomenon. Further, there is no balance; IE: we're treated to some gory, arbitrary assessment attached to questonable sources about how the "asian fetish" leads to crimes against asian women. That is COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED IN ANYWAY, AND IF THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL PROOF FOR THIS, IT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE ARTICLE. The term fetish, as Teji points out here, in the way Gong insists it be used, is completely unscholarly and questionable. I tried to add these comments yesterday here, but Gong reverted them/ erased them. But my point is that he is being irresponsible as he blends his odd, bizarre ideas about non-asians inflicting harm on asians because of some sort of obsession -- and fact. This is what makes this article so unworthy of WIKI: it is an op-ed piece dressed up in news piece clothes. Like a small child playing dress-up; or the proverbial Emperor with no Clothes. And then when we call Mr. Gong on his glaring lack of consistent logic, he scolds us by telling us to "go write it in your blog, we don't care." Well, I might actually do that if it weren't for the fact that this article sounds like a blog already -- Gong's private blog. Again: separate the fact from opinion and bring balance by distinguishing between unhealthy obsessions that lead to harm with harmless attraction that can lead to good. these need to be founded on good Psychological thinking and theory. In the end, it's Gong's burden to prove that there is, indeed, an "asian fetish" as he believes it exists in his own mind. Until that happens, this whole article needs to be deleted or trashed completely. It's been around too long, and it offends a lot of people with its arbitrary, implied accusations against whole swaths of people.Computer1200 06:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits and Restructuring

There is too much opinion and commentary in factual sections. There is too much uncited or poorly cited materials.

Let us please make a separate section called "Commentary, Opinion, and Activism", because most of the information falls into it. Then it can be subdivided.

Let's also add a section called something like "Negative Consequences of the Asian Fetish" in society or something like that. That way all the material from non-prominent non-majority views (see WP:NPOV policy) can be placed into the same section.

Also, lets make a list facts that should be used for creating the neutral part of the page. Please add facts (not facts about opinions, which should be added in that section).

There is definitely a theme about the ills of Asian fetishes that run through many of the sections. It would be efficient and useful for NPOV purposes to consolidates these into one section appropriately titled, rather than to have them strewn about the various sections causing all sorts of NPOV issues (are the competing viewpoints addressed in each section too).

Facts

Asian fetish is a sexual preference for Asian women or men.

While (like every aspect of human behavior) it is related to psychology in the lay sense, an Asian fetish is in no way a fetish in the true psychological sense as accepted in the medical or scientific communities. Therefore it should be defined as a sexual preference. And please let's simply state that before getting into all the negative consequences of the Asian fetish.

  Exactly, a preference of  racially masculine Europid males for racially feminine Mongolid females
  according to the three universal Hartmann laws of sexuality. We had written an excellent paragraph       
  on this which was the only scientific part of the entire article.This insight does not harm 
  anyone. Shaffir , Prasso etc. insult people.80.138.184.206 01:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)    
   

Nice big words, who wouldn't like it? Just make sure it's properly sourced. And please, a username is free. Teji 02:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Facts about Opinions

Commentary

Teji 00:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Consolidating the Ills of Asian Fetish

This should be its own section. Here are the paragraphs that can go there:

David Henry Hwang criticises the opinions of non-Asian men in his ...

The first academic treatment of the fetishism of A...

However there are Asian women who claim that it is "not as innocent as i...

The entire Asian fetish as a cause of crime section

There is disagreement about whether relationships between whites and Asians are an exhibition of a type of racism...

This is an incredible statement in and of its own. Just the fact that we are actually considering that an asian/white relationship can in and of itself be racist is ridiculous.Computer1200 19:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

These should all get their own section as they all illustrate the problems associate with the Asian fetish. Clearly it is not the majority view that an Asian fetish only has negative consequences (and since their are no prominent sources mentioned, is not considered NPOV by the WP policy). Teji 00:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How do you qualify that "clearly" it is not the majority view? If we specify exactly what sources support the statements, I don't believe it's a problem at all. And as far as Asian fetish as a cause of crime is concerned, there have been individual articles written exactly on this. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, how do you define what the "majority" opinion is? If you're talking about Wikipedia users, then it is clearly slanted towards white people since the majority of people in America are Caucasian. If we're going to go by the tyranny of numbers then Asians (who are only 4% of the US population) are going to be in the "minority" every time. Likewise, the majority of scientists and researchers in America are white, thus "established" research will be from a slanted white point of view. That's the problem with defining common sense as what "most people" believe. It depends on who makes up that majority. OneViewHere 03:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh Please. So your twisted logic here is this: all scientists are racist whites, so how can we trust their views to reliable? You are creating a ridiculous precedent (that any self-respecting scientist -- all asian scientists included -- would reject outright) that simply allows you to believe whatever you want to believe. And yes: if only 4% of you believe it, that does NOT make a majority. And in academic and scientific discourse, concensus is a respected form of reliability that has existed for millenia. You do not have the right to nonchalantly discard concensus for the purposes of promoting your personal agenda. Sorry. And this is really good: "....thus "established" research will be from a slanted white point of view." How in the hell can good, established, scientific research be "slanted?" Empirical research of the best variety is NOT slanted. It is simply information that happens to be proven. Jeez. Empirical truth is color-blind, provable, and devoid of personal agendas.Computer1200 07:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the Nazi scientists who performed experiments on the Jews in the concentration camps used "established" research methods as well. If you're going to go into the topic of research on racial issues, then using scientitic studies from predominently white scientists introduces the possibility of bias. Scientists are human beings who suffer from prejudices just like the rest of us. Not only from a racial sense, but from a cultural perspective as well. And I would stay away from the topic of "consensus" if I were you Computer1200. This article has survived in its present form despite 2 votes for deletion and countless vandalism attempts. The Wikipedia community by CONSENSUS has already voted that this article in its present form is a VALID article. Now that Hong and the Wiki admin are engaging in some constructive feedback, where are you? If you're so HOT to correct the bias you perceive in this article, then you should be ALL OVER that discussion. But we haven't heard a peep from you. -Which just proves that you don't care about improving this article. All you care about is dissing on it. OneViewHere 08:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, OneViewHere, in answer to your questions about whether I care: yes. But when I tried -- TWICE -- to add my opinions to the mix, guess who came in and reverted? Our friend, Gong. That's right, you can thank Gong for editing all of my input out, which took me about 45 minutes at the time. I simply did not have time to remember and do it all again. However, I DID add my input.

I like this: "scientitic studies from predominently white scientists introduces the possibility of bias." Hilarious. There is the possibility of bias in anything, OneViewHere. There is the possibility that the last Supreme Court decision was biased. Does that mean we do not acknowledge the Supreme Court as a viable authority? No. Likewise, when you play the silly race card, it simply makes you look desperate. Incidentally, I would guess your logic would apply to asian scientists, including the Korean scientists that brazenly reported false data to Nature concerning their gene research recently, so they could be in the limelight. Your argument that somehow white scientists are biased is silly. But even if there were biased white scientists (you know, similar to the flat-out dishonest Korean ones that I mentioned?), they would be rooted out eventually, as were the Korean scientists. Most scientists detest cheaters.

And this article has survived in its present form, OneViewHere, because you and Gong go get all your friends to come over and vote. This is because you consider this little corner of WIKI your personal property. Not so. You are addressing the very core of who I am, and I wont sit back and let it be so unbalanced. Sorry. My advice, as I have posted above, is that we need BALANCE. If you want to say there is a wierd "asian fetish" then you need to also make it clear that this is very similar to simply attraction and that for someone to have an attraction to one flavor of relationships DOES NOT make it a disease, or something that would lead to "crimes against women." Fascinating in its lack of logic. Fascinating.Computer1200 20:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that editors are discussing this. Please seek common ground. -Will Beback · † · 02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay guys, guys, relax. I'm not talking about majority in that way. I am asking several things, "is this established science or scholarship?," "is this representative of a majority view" (and therefore easy to find several reputable sources.) I argue that the items listed at the top of this section are not a majority view, and even if it were, there isn't really a good set of resources to support these claims (e.g. asian fetish as a cause of crime is an opinion page from one student, but has NO statistics or facts, it is anecdotal). But I am aware that this is a viewpoint of some group of people. What is important is that the viewpoint of a few uncreditable people does not interfere with a) the neutral information (definitions, usages) and b) opposing viewpoints of other people. Now the best way is to simply title the section with what the content contains, and clearly these are all opinions about the negative consequences of the Asian fetish. They deserve to be in the article, but do not have the right to usurp it, because it is neither the majority commonsense view, nor the established view in scholarly or scientific communities (e.g. Asian fetish is not an established fetish, it is colloquial.) I'm not saying they are right or wrong, but that there are few facts to support these claims (e.g. no statistics about white on asian sex crime, just opinions).

If this were Nazi germany, perhaps we would have articles on that kind of research, and it would be considered NPOV. Furthermore, eugenics was in fact a reputable science, (note i said was) because it was studied and promoted by established, credible scientists. It isn't anymore, so it isn't credible.

OneViewHere, I hope you can support your claim that white scientists must be biased, because it's pretty racist in itself. Wouldn't Asian scientists also be biased? Furthermore, I don't care when this article was voted to be valid by consensus (does a vote really make an article valid, mr. "human beings suffer from prejudices"?). Also, encouraging people to stay away from consensus really doesn't build consensus very well. Also, don't knock critics. Though it is easier to diss an article than improve it, dissing is an important step to improvement. Even though he doesn't have a suggestion for how to improve the article, his disses may be valid. You probably think the Iraq war is bad. Can you fix it? Probably not. Does that mean the Iraq is good? Heck no. This article sucks. It's hard to improve. Does that mean it doesn't suck. No, this article really sucks. It's full of one-sided minority view opinions that assert the ills of the Asian fetish, without addressing the view that Asian fetish is a tongue-in-cheek colloquiallism at the same time. Teji 18:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that this article is very bad and I repeat: it should be aggressively edited or deleted completely.Computer1200 20:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, one thing at a time.

Ok, one thing at a time. Let's take a look at the intro. Do you have any problem with the current wording?

The term Asian fetish is a construct combining the definitions of "Asian" and "fetish." In this way, the term can be understood as the attraction or sexual preference, usually of non-Asian men or women, for Asian women or men. In colloquial usage, a non-Asian person who is exclusively interested in Asian people for sexual and/or romantic relationships is said to have an Asian fetish. 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. However, others disagree with this assertion, and believe that the use of the term to describe one's sexual preference for Asian women is a way to indiscriminantly condemn all relationships between Asian women and non-Asian men. The first known usage of the term "Asian fetish" came from Asian American author David Henry Hwang.

Controversy rages and criticism abounds on this topic. Controversies include disputes over the definition of the term "Asian fetish", the credibility and validity of sources on this topic, and its potential relationship to racism and reverse racism.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro is okay. Next, please :) Teji 04:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what User:Teji has to say first. He/she seems to have very strong editorial opinions on the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's me. Forgot to log in. Thanks for the nod. Teji 04:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

WTF is "reverse racism"??? Move to strike that meaningless bit. 217.206.93.34 13:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How about we just get rid of that last sentence? What do you think, Teji? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Taking out reverse racism suffices. Teji 05:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok moving on

Here's the first paragraph of the Terminology section currently.

In all of its usages, Asian fetish is a colloquial reference to a sexual fetish. It has not been recognized as a paraphilia or fetish by the medical or psychological community. It is often used to refer to a strong preference for (arguably a fixation on) Asian people themselves, their physical appearances, or personality that they are presumed to have. Those who consider Asian fetish to be harmful believe it to be a fetish in the sense of "a fixation" on stereotypes of Asians.

I suggest we change it to:

In its common usage, Asian fetish is a colloquial reference to a sexual fetish, but it has not been recognized as a paraphilia or fetish by the medical or psychological community. It is used to refer to an attraction or sexual preference specifically for Asian people, their physical appearance, or personality traits that they are presumed to have. Those who consider Asian fetish to be harmful believe it to be an attraction based on stereotypes of Asian people.

Let me know what you think (this applies to any interested contributing editors). And terms will be wikilinked when appropriate. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like it to be "In its common usage, Asian fetish is a colloquial reference to a sexual preference", because it is not a sexual fetish in any official meaning of the word. While a minority view may be that it is a psychological fetish, there is no widely accepted or prominent that say otherwise. I would also be fine with "sexual preference, obsession, or focus" to foreshadow the seriousness of it that some commentators have. Because opinions range from the term being harmless tongue-in-cheek to society rotting stereotyping, would shouldn't imply either. Saying it is a sexual fetish gives in undue and inacurrate credibility from the psychological community. Definitely it can not say it is a "reference to a sexual fetish," because that is just plain inaccurate.

I know the paragraph does say it is not a fetish but a preference later in the paragraph, but the first paragraph is the main idea, and it contradicts those subsequent sentences. The etymology from the intro should suffice to explain that fetish is used in the colloquial sense.

I changed this paragraph to In all of its usages, Asian fetish is a colloquial reference to a sexual preference. It has not been recognized as a paraphilia or fetish by the medical or psychological community. It is often used to refer to a strong sexual preference for Asian people. This may originate from culture, physical or personality traits, or stereotyped or sexualized views of Asian culture. There are those who consider an Asian fetish in the latter sense to be harmful. See the sociological dangers of Asian fetish for more information.

Except for the term sexual fetish, which definitely must change to sexual preference or obsession, the rest is mostly about style. It is used to refer to an attraction or sexual preference specifically for Asian people is redundant and or personality traits that they are presumed to have. is clumsy, even presumed personality traits is better.

We should make clear that there is a range of usage of this term, not just as an explaination for crime, intra-racial (should be interracial) marriage condemnation, etc... Yes it is used for porn, but it is also can be used in jest whenever a guy dates an asian girl (or vice-versa). It has this range of uses, none of which excludes the other.

Those who consider Asian fetish to be harmful believe it to be a fetish in the sense of "a fixation" on stereotypes of Asians. Gets into commentary waaay too early. The terminology section is not the place for this, as this is a consequence of the Asian fetish in general. Furthermore it asserts that a minority viewpoint from non-prominent figure(s), and generalizes without support. It is sufficient to say Views of the term range from inoccuous (sp?) tongue-and-cheek to harmful stereotyping, because it spans the range of views. Teji 17:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So how about In all of its usages, Asian fetish is a colloquial reference to a sexual preference. It has not been recognized as a paraphilia or fetish by the medical or psychological community. It is often used to refer to a strong sexual preference for Asian people. The origins of the term and its usage vary widely. Then go on to origins and usages.

With some other paragraph (preferably in a section on commentary) starting with, Views of the term range from inoccuous (sp?) tongue-and-cheek to harmful stereotyping... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teji (talk • contribs) 2007-02-27 17:16:30

Actually, reading it again, I believe we should keep that last sentence in. Specifically - "Those who consider Asian fetish to be harmful believe it to be a fetish in the sense of "a fixation" on stereotypes of Asians." This is not so much a commentary on Asian fetish, but it serves to explain why the word "fetish" is used in the term, as opposed to the fact that the psychological community does not define it as a traditional fetish. And the reason the first sentence reads the way it does is because it is a colloqial reference. It explains linguistically why the word "fetish" is part of the term. But how about this:

Even though the word "fetish" is used in the term "Asian fetish", it has not been recognized as a paraphilia or fetish by the medical or psychological community. It is used to refer to an attraction or sexual preference specifically for Asian people, their physical appearance, or personality traits that they are presumed to have. Those who consider Asian fetish to be harmful believe it to be a fetish in the sense of "a fixation" on stereotypes of Asians.

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Getting there, but it makes sense to start the paragraph saying what it is, not how it isn't used. ""Even though"" starts a constast statement that can be used to refine the meaning of an Asian fetish. It isn't a very good topic sentence.

Asian Fetish is an attraction or sexual preference specifically for Asian people, their physical appearance, or stereotyped personality traits. It uses "fetish" colloquially and is not a fetish as recognized by the medical or psychological community.

If you want to keep the last sentence, then it should be balanced by the other extreme view, e.g. Views of the term range from innocuous tongue-in-cheek to harmful stereotyping. We can't favor one view over the other in such a neutral section like terminology. The next sentence says that the usage varies widely, so why have only one viewpoint here? We can expand on it in a section on commentary and opinions. Furthermore, that can go into the usage subsection as one of the usages of Asian fetish.

The thing to note here is that ""Asian fetish"" is really not an official term but a colloquial one. You can find widely varying usages of it from culture-rotting danger to simply an expression of any white-asian couple. The sources for it are so bad in this article, not because the research is poor, but because there really aren't legimate resources on this. So we have to either delete this article, or just include the range of usages. There are plenty of resources with the quality of these (student newspapers, opinions pages) with other usages that are tongue-in-cheek, that are used to refer to any relationship between asian and other. Look at pornography for instance: Asian fetish is used to denote a genre of pornography. You may say that it is from a stereotyped view and go on about, but the usage in pornography does not make that clear; it is just another usage of the term.

Teji 05:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

How's this?

Asian Fetish is an attraction or sexual preference specifically for Asian people, their physical appearance, or stereotyped traits. The term "fetish" is used colloquially and is not a fetish as recognized by the medical or psychological community. Those who consider Asian fetish to be harmful believe it to be a fetish in the sense of "a fixation" on stereotypes of Asians.

It's NPOV in that it explains that it's not a medically recognised fetish, and it also explains why it's termed a "fetish" despite that fact. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, looks good!

Can we refer to the range of usages in the "usage" subsection? Teji 22:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll keep a working version of what we've agreed on so far here - User:HongQiGong/Asian fetish. As far as the range of usages that are mentioned in the Terminology section, I think it's a bit too convoluted anyway, and if you're OK with it, let's just get rid of the rest of that section and move on to the next. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Aight 216.165.96.71 01:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you Teji? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

<-- Can we unprotect this page now? -Will Beback · † · 05:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Give it a little more time. We are working toward consensus. There are still those "one-article" editors that check in once in a while to "rage against the machine" at this article. Since it's protected, they basically use this Talk page as their own personal soapbox. When those editors are willing to calm down and engage in some reasonable discussion instead of just soapboxing, I think it would be time to unprotect the article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, a little more time please. Let's try to get a consensus on at least the first two sections on this talk page with whomever is interested. That way we will have a firm basis to build on. Otherwise the page may be susceptible to vandalism, which only complicates the legitimate conflicts. At least we hammered out the first paragraph! Teji 19:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Typo in article, "Use in pornography" section

Race oriented pornographyy -> Race oriented pornography. Can someone make the change for poor old anonymous? --212.139.23.66 08:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Will correct spelling mistakes once we reach consensus. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, feel free to contribute to the ongoing discussion in the above section. Teji 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Next

Ok, moving on to the "Origin of the term" section:

The earliest discussion of Yellow Fever in a sexual usage which later became known as the Asian fetish, seems to be in the play M. Butterfly by David Henry Hwang written in 1988. The play, based on a true story, is about a French diplomat who is seduced by a male Chinese spy pretending to be a female "Oriental" opera singer, by playing to the diplomat's stereotypical beliefs of how Chinese women should act. In the afterword Hwang writes:

“ Similarly, heterosexual Asians have long been aware of "Yellow Fever" -- White men with a fetish for exotic Oriental women. I have often heard it said that "Oriental women make the best wives." (Rarely is this heard from the mouths of Asian men, incidentally.) This mythology is exploited by the Oriental mail-order bride trade which has flourished over the decade. American men can now (in 1988) send away for catalogues of "obedient, domesticated" Asian women looking for husbands. Anyone who believes such stereotypes are a thing of the past need look no further than Manhattan cable television (in 1988), which advertises call girls from "the exotic east, where men are king; obedient girls, trained in the art of pleasure."[1] ”

David Henry Hwang criticises the opinions of non-Asian men in his slight, "Rarely is this heard from the mouths of Asian men". He further uses these two statements as evidence for the Asian fetish he claims exists. His argument rests on the implied premise that Asian men are the actual authorities on whether or not Asian women make the best wives, so non-Asian men must be misguided, a presumed factor in the Asian fetish. Non-Asian men may evaluate Asian women to be "the best", because they have different qualifications for being a "good" wife. Cultural differences may be involved in non-Asian men stating "Oriental women make the best wives". However, ultimately, the notion that any woman would make a good wife based on her race and/or culture alone is a stereotype and as such is part of the Asian fetish.[citation needed]

The first academic treatment of the fetishism of Asian Americans was by Columbia professor David L. Eng, in his dissertation work at the University of California, Berkeley.[2]

What do you think of this section? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is tough. While I can understand that yellow fever is related to Asian fetish, this whole section jerry-rigs probably the only valid citation into the Article with the unsubstantiated statement "The earliest discussion of Yellow Fever in a sexual usage which later became known as the Asian fetish..." If this statement is not true, the whole section is invalid. The most important connection here is just a parenthetical, which later became known as the Asian fetish! No good at all. Substantiate that somehow, or put this in a section on related terminology. Or in an article on yellow fever or madame butterfly. This one is going to take a lot of work.

Furthermore, The first academic treatment of the fetishism of Asian Americans was by Columbia professor David L. Eng is wrong. Remember, it's not a fetish, so how could this guy have made the first academic treatment of it? Also there is still a citation needed sign in there! I agree with it. There are a lot of connections a concepts that look like someone threw together in an effort to work Hwang's statements.

More later... Teji 17:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be worded better than "academic treatment". That's too ambiguous. Let me think of how to re-write this. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The above 3 paragraphs you provide to justify the term "asian fetish" as something completely unique and deserving of a special section in WIKI (and NOT other similar "festishes," like an asian-male to white-female fetish for example) are so vague and ambiguous that it is fascinating to me that you expect us to admit it as academic and useful from an objective, empirical perspective. Further, you state that is "seems" this is where it began. Again, further, it is a play (read: fiction) that they say is "based on a true story." Uhu.. Then, the whole premise of the play is (take a deep breath) a chinese man playing a chinese woman who is a spy trying to seduce a French caucasian man." Really, Gong. How in the world do you expect people to take your "asian fetish" -- so unique and evil -- seriously?

Probably the most striking blow against your own argument int he above 3 paragraphs for the existence of a completely unique "asian fetish" is this: the author is an asian male who has produced an asian male character playing an asian female who is mortified at the treatment of asian women by caucasian men!! If anything, what we have here is a vindication of the idea that asian men are bent on creating an evil, negative mythology called an "asian fetish!!" If the chinese man is "playing to the diplomat's stereotypical beliefs of how Chinese women should act," then what I see is Hwang living out a fantasy in his own novel about the myth of a wierd "asian fetish" that is really no more than an attraction, just like a black women might be attracted to a latin man at a bar, and then sleep with him; or a european man might be attracted to an exotic Indian woman while he is travelling. We don't hear any word of these kinds of attractions as "fetishes" because they are not fetishes, they are attractions.

Further, you continue to make completely subjective statements throughout your argument in these paragraphs. For example:

"I have often heard it said that "Oriental women make the best wives." You have? From whom? When? How many times? If you don't have sufficient data here recorded, then the information is subjective, and cannot be something you base your argument for a unique "asian fetish" as opposed to other "fetishes" like the fetish asian men have for white women.

Let's discuss this fascination asian men have with white women. If I use your technique for coining the "asian fetish" as used to identify caucasian men who are attracted to asian women (or vice versa), then the term fetish certianly applies to the tens of thousands of asian men who regularly see white female prostitutes all over Japan, Korea, and China. As a matter of fact, they are usually much more expensive than the asian prostitutes and they also have their pick of asian men to seduce and take advantage of. Most of them are poor Russian and Eastern Eurpopean women, and many times Asian gangs mistreat them and beat them. This also is a crime. As a caucasian man, I might find this exploitation of white women as degrading and insulting to Anglo-Saxon cutlure -- and i probably should. But I had never thought of it before I came across this asian fetish thing.

My point? The term "asian fetish" as you are applying it here is inaccurate as you portray it. Your definition is very biased toward white male and asian female relationships. I find this fascinating, because I lived in asia for eight years and found an intense asian-male fascination with white women, much of the time in complete secret, but nevertheless very clearly evident in the boom of white female prostitution in Asia at present.

Let me finish by saying that the final 3rd paragraph is really simply meaningless. Who cares who Henry Hwang criticizes in his sleights? What does this have to do with a responsible, scientific observation of your claim that the "asian fetish" as you define it, really exists? Even if it did, for you to be objective you would have to follow your own definition to its logical end, and clearly recognize there could also be a very dangerous fetish on the opposite side of your criticism -- among your very own male friends! And it would be just as "dangerous" -- if not more so -- than any white-male to asian-female "fetish" because much of Asian prostitution is very free and the authorities don't monitor it.

Again, Hong, I don't mean to disrespect you, but your article as it stands is still very unbalanced and based on the ambiguous murmurings of a few asians with really no empirical evidence.

My vote is that the article be removed.Computer1200 04:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

That is fucking terrible. Hong is a racist piece of shit who is insecure about his own culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.216.23 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-31 17:19:29

What did you do that guy, Hong?! j/k. Unsigned, chill man! Aaaanyway. Sorry I haven't been looking at this lately, but...would you mind if we discuss a little restructuring? I will add another section below about it. We can work in parallel on the specific wording here and on the structure below. Teji 05:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My rewrite: (note that this, in my view, should not go in the origin of the term section, especially since the only statement to that effect 'Yellow Fever in a sexual usage which later became known as the Asian fetish', is an uncited parathentical)

Section: Commentary

David Henry Hwang addresses the causes and historicity of the Asian fetish in his analysis of M. Butterfly in 1988. His work uses the term Yellow Fever and specifically defines it as "White men with a fetish for exotic Oriental women." In his opinion, the Asian fetish is the result of a stereotyped view of Asian wives that, ironically, Asian men do not hold. The play, based on a true story, is about a French diplomat who is seduced by a male Chinese spy pretending to be a female "Oriental" opera singer, by playing to the diplomat's stereotypical beliefs of how Chinese women should act. In the afterword Hwang writes: “ Similarly, heterosexual Asians have long been aware of "Yellow Fever" -- White men with a fetish for exotic Oriental women. I have often heard it said that "Oriental women make the best wives." (Rarely is this heard from the mouths of Asian men, incidentally.) This mythology is exploited by the Oriental mail-order bride trade which has flourished over the decade. American men can now (in 1988) send away for catalogues of "obedient, domesticated" Asian women looking for husbands. Anyone who believes such stereotypes are a thing of the past need look no further than Manhattan cable television (in 1988), which advertises call girls from "the exotic east, where men are king; obedient girls, trained in the art of pleasure."[1] ”

Now the next paragraph is a little to original-researchy. Allow me to illustrate.

David Henry Hwang criticises the opinions of non-Asian men in his slight, "Rarely is this heard from the mouths of Asian men". He further uses these two statements as evidence for the Asian fetish he claims exists. His argument rests on the implied premise that Asian men are the actual authorities on whether or not Asian women make the best wives, so non-Asian men must be misguided, a presumed factor in the Asian fetish. Non-Asian men may evaluate Asian women to be "the best", because they have different qualifications for being a "good" wife. Cultural differences may be involved in non-Asian men stating "Oriental women make the best wives". However, ultimately, the notion that any woman would make a good wife based on her race and/or culture alone is a stereotype and as such is part of the Asian fetish.[citation needed]

Waay too much assumption here from the writer of this paragraph: implied and presumed are dangerous here. (And please don't say "okay let's take them out" because that would make the paragraph simply an unbased assertion) Personally, I didn't take that away from Hwang's quote. In fact, the parenthetical comment about Asian men's views of Asian wives is more for irony, where the paragraph above uses it to presume that non-Asian's are wrong and Asian men are right, and that the notion that any woman would make a good wife based on her race and/or culture is what an Asian fetish is in general, when really it is an extrapolation of Hwang's work, especially since Hwang defines it as white men having a stereoytped view of asian women. Regardless of opinion here, Hwang's commentary is not enough to form the basis of the definition of Asian fetish as always some kind of racism. I move to strike this paragraph in its entirety, otherwise it needs serious rewriting from scratch. Teji 18:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking back, I realized that my problem with this is the title of the section "Origin of the Term", which I took to mean etymology, when really this section discusses root causes of the Asian fetish according to Hwang. Teji 18:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Teji. I think that to create a myth about this "Asian fetish" that is based on Henry Hwang's usage here is not valid. Further, The article itself does not answer two fundamental questions:

1. What is the difference between an asian fetish and a simple attraction?

According to Hwang the Asian fetish he discusses is based on stereotyped view of Asian Women. This is one opinion. You can argue the credibility of Hwang if you want, but if really is an expert (i really don't know anything about this guy), his opinion can go in. Teji 19:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

2. If there is such a negative, destructive "Asian fetish," then why aren't we also talkiing about what would be the same kind of "fetish-like" behavior that we find with Asian males in Asia who solicit white female prostitutes for huge amounts of money? The point is that the "Asian fetish" as it is defined here is not unique, and therefore we need to be discussing other kinds of "Asian fetishes" like Asian male to white female.

Well, this article is called Asian fetish, not White fetish. An Asian male having a fetish for a white female isn't an Asian fetish in the way this article describes it, Asian being the target of the sexual attraction, not the source. Teji 19:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it really it not a "White fetish" according to the definition at the head of the Asian Fetish article, which says it goes both ways. The Asian-male to white-prostitute thing is really just another "Asian fetish" is it not? The point is that for the Asian fetish to be unique enough to deserve it's own entry, it should be significantly different from other "fetishes" to warrant that. However, there are plenty of other intercultural fetishes that are just as significant that do not have their own articles and emphases, eg: asian-male to white-female. If we agree that it is OK to include that material within this article "Asian Fetish," then I will include material accordingly. If there is disagreement on this, then where would the asian-male to white-female fetish material go? Computer1200 19:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Quote from the terminology section as agreed upon most recently: "Asian Fetish is an attraction or sexual preference specifically for Asian people...". We did go through the definition already (see the above section), but if you think we need to revisit it, make a new discussion section. But generally, when you say ____ fetish, it means a subject has some kind of attraction to ____, not ____ having any attraction to the subject.

But I do understand what you are saying, the article kind of begs the questions (especially the sections on crime and condemnations). They really kind of assert the existence without providing any verification. Asian fetish, in my experience, is actually a legit term, but really only a tongue-in-cheek thing. It can't be shown to be anything else, because there really isn't any evidence. That is why I am trying to root out, unfortunately slowly, all the crap in this article based on begging the question and disgruntled editorials. Teji 20:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

In the end, if we isolate ONLY the "Asian" fetish, then we are saying it is different and more important and significant that other fetishes. Indeed, is it truly more important than other fetishes? Is it more dangerous? More racist?

Well there are other such terms, jungle fever for instance, and these are all relatively new terms. But there is some agreement that such preoccupations exist, at least in pop culture (like the movie jungle fever for instance), so I don't think you can logically call for removal of this page for that reason (but you can call a vote or argue that it is a neologism and therefore should be removed). Furthermore, the article is called Asian fetish, not racial fetish, so why should it go into detail about other sexual preferences? Hong does have a point, nothing is stopping you from making other "fetish" pages, and as long as this page doesn't make assert that the Asian fetish is the only one. If you think the page should go, call a vote, if you think it should merge, there is a process for that too. But otherwise, help us reword the article so that you don't get the impression that the Asian fetish is the only fetish and is more important or significant than other fetishes. Though I think the fact that there is much dialogue on this article compared with other racial fetish articles circumstantially indicates that it has some prominence (not necessarily importance) for the wikipedia audience. Teji 19:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In order for this article to stand alone, it is my view that these questions need to be answered. Otherwise, we need to simply create an article about "intercultural attraction." As it has been said, the scientific definition of "fetish" has to do with inanimate objects and the use here, in any case, is not correct.Computer1200 19:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, and we did reword that to make it clear that it is not actually a fetish (i insisted that the first two lines say Asian fetish is a preference and is not a fetish in any scientific way, only colloquially). If you want to merge or change titles, go for it. You would have to set up redirects, disambiguations, etc, and it would really help to actually have a page that has some info about intercultural attraction first, otherwise it's just a retitling. Could you actually write something about Asian fetish being a cultural thing to balance the racial stereotype theory? That would be fantastic contrast here. Teji 19:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will try to write some things about intercultural attraction. And also, I find the idea that we are using the term "fetish" loosely to be very counter-productive to the WIKI model, symantically. I thoroughly feel that we need to enforce the term's correct usage, particualarly as an article title. It can lead to confusion, and general disrespect for English as a communication tool. Computer1200 19:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring

Okay, my whole premise here is to separate the opinions from the facts. And somewhat relatedly, the controversial from the accepted information. To reiterate a few sections that need their own section (and my insistence that their needs to be a separate section on commentary) here are some areas that should go into a section title "Commentary, Opinion, and Activism."

However there are Asian women who claim that it is "not as innocent as i...

The entire Asian fetish as a cause of crime section

There is disagreement about whether relationships between whites and Asians are an exhibition of a type of racism...

Hong, I know that there are articles about the Asian fetish as a cause of crime, but the stats just don't show it right now. A thousand articles of opinions are still opinions. And if there were a thousand, maybe you could say that this is a majority view, but the articles, at least the ones references here, are from a cottage group of individuals, mostly in student newspapers and internet forums. Not credible enough to be fact. But relevant enough to be commentary. Ergo, a new section called "Commentary, Opinion, and Activism." Teji 04:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with putting in opinions as long as they are not opinions of editors and as long as we attribute them to the people that expressed them instead of representing them broadly as facts. Readers can decide for themselves how seriously they want to take so-and-so's opinion on the subject matter. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you need to clearly mark the entire article -- based ambiguously on a term from Henry Hwang's fictitious work -- as opinion. You cannot broadly support your contention that there is a unique "asian fetish" as you insist on portraying it. There is no evidence for it outside of your student newspaper articles, blogs and forums. As I mentioned above, if we take your line of thinking, and make it valid, then we are obligated to include all kinds of other "fetishes," like the asian-male "fetish" for white Russian and Eastern European women prostitutes.Computer1200 04:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If you feel there are enough sources to support an article for these other "fetishes", feel free to create articles for them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, opinions are fine. But it's not enough to just fill an article with opinions and let the reader's decide (in fact, the point of wikipedia is that when reader's find something wrong, they change it). There are two main problems: only one set of opinions is represented, and opinions are neither attributed to experts nor substantiated. First, please read the policy on this for guidance, then I will expand on these problems in the next paragraph. Wikipedia policy: Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true. A different approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Doe excels. There is a temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words: "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But statements of this form are subject to obvious attacks: "Yes, many people think so, but only ignorant people"; and "Just how many is 'many'? I think it's only 'a few' who think that!" By attributing the claim to a known authority, or substantiating the facts behind it, you can avoid these problems. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#A_vital_component:_good_research

The opinions about crime, the innocence of the asian fetish, information about intraracial marriages have no expert or substantiated citations with the exception of Hwang. But Hwang's is an expert opinion on a matter and should be presented to reflect that. Of courses opinions are acceptable, but this article gives the impression that these are not opinions, or at least that there aren't really any others. And we can debate that all day. But the fact is, allowing non-expert opinions opens the article to really anybody adding their two cents as long as they have a web page, which is why you have some many people contributing different views to the article. My original idea was simply to take out all the information from non-experts (student opinion columns, forums, etc) but Hong seems attached, which is why we should make a section for commentaries so that, in the future, other opinions can be added right next to the current opinions in this article. This way, we can acheive neutrality in part of the article, and balance (in the future) in the rest of the article. Teji 17:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My main beef is that we take something that might exist ambiguously in the minds of some people in popular culture, drag it into a WIKI article, and parade it as something much more than that. I think it's dangerous. Unless you put "OPINION PAGE" in large letter at the very top. That is why we respect the journalism profession, because we know very clearly when something is just fact (news articles), and when something is an opinion (Op-ed Editorial pages). WIKI readers deserve the very same respect.

In the end, if we allow a fictitious piece by Hwang to dominate the article and form the scientific basis for the origin of the term, then I'm not sure how that is serving the WIKI community. Computer1200 23:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Removing Asian Fetish as Cause of Crime

In rereading this article, this section is pretty outrageous:

Citations: The only citations that assert this are two college newspaper editorials. There are zero facts, except the one anecdotal incident the editorials complain about. The incident isn't even officially related to an Asian fetish except as an assertion of the commentators opinions (I should add that they are not criminologists or experts in any field that would make them credible). It's circular, the only way to make the claim is with opinions, but in order to support it, the same opinions are used.

Claims: The claims are non-majority views (the hint is the fact that activists make this claim). Coupled with the lack of substatiation (no hard statistics which the crime against asian women page says there isn't any anyway) and attribution (only student opinion pages), these claims should not be represented on wikipedia (see the wikipedia policy quote in the restructuring section).

Example: some Asian American authors and activists claim that the proclivity has dangerous implications The "authors and activists" here are student opinion columnists. The claim is asserted by activists, not supported by experts and data as it should be. The "dangerous implications" are pure speculation.

I'm sorry, but this section must be removed; it's far too outlandish to keep. I await its defence, but the defenders will really have to work miracles on this one. Teji 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Stereotypical media portrayals section is not appropriate in this article

Recent portrayals of Asians in the American media, in some cases, have avoided many of the stereotypes of the past (see Ethnic stereotypes in American media and Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians), and the increased availability of media directly from Asia makes the stereotypical basis that would support an Asian fetish less relevant than in the past. However, many note that Asian-Americans in every day situations are not being portrayed in these foreign media, adding to the perception that they are foreigners, even when they are not. The bulk of media directly from Asia tends to be martial arts related. Some believe that these foreign media reinforce the stereotypes that others claim that they are eliminating, or create new ones.[citation needed]

See Ethnic stereotypes in American media and Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians

I know what you're going to say, "Asian fetishes are based on stereotypes, this section is about stereotypes of Asian people, ergo it belongs here." The problem is the premise that Asian fetishes are based on stereotypes. Remember how we made it clear in the first part of the article about how this is only one point of view on the topic? Well, because someone can go to the article on stereotypes if one wants, it's really not necessary to put this section in. Furthermore, it doesn't use a verifiable source or even really address the connection between Asian fetish and stereotypes using a any good source (whereas Hwang is a verifiable source.) So really, this section doesn't belong here, nor is it even credible enough even if it did. Teji 20:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Affect on those of the same race

All of the racism mentioned in this article is presumed to be against Asians. There is a flip-side to Asian fetish that is a preference for a race other than one's own, implying a lacking in the opposite gender of one's own race (e.g. white women). As this is a real phenomenon that is affecting causing hurt in same-gender couples, it seems necessary to address its conseqences within the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.2.135.46 (talk • contribs).

The hope is that we won't be addressing any consequences that aren't well-documented. This is problem, allowing for poorly cited, unsubstantioned, unattributed comments allows anyone to simply use the article to voice their views and concerns (which is of course fine on the discussion page). We should really just remove all material that isn't well-documented. 144.81.32.187 20:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This article should be euthanased and here's why

I tried with others for most of last year to bring some rationaltiy to this article, a lot of editors put in a lot of work, but in the end the topic is so controversal and the people involved in this so closed minded that this article cannot evolve (editors like me just give up and drift away) it is instead in constant revolution, just like graffit on top of graffiti. As far as I can tell none of the article from last year is still present, at some point it has been totally replaced and by the look of it gone backward drastically. There is no article here, just a slanging, shouting match. --Hontogaichiban 03:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing

This article needs to be edited with a meat cleaver.

Uncited material has been removed, as per Wikipedia policy at WP:V and WP:RS. An unnecessary repetition of the exact same quote from David Henry Hwang has been removed, as per the Undue Weight section of WP:NPOV. Weasel worded statements have been removed. Do not reinsert any of this material without proper citations in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you at least read the discussion before deleting (you deleted the rewrite). 144.81.32.187 21:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have personally read the various version of that section, and as I've said before, it's a WP:Original research strung together by sources that don't actually talk about Asian fetish itself. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, looks pretty good now. After Crotalus' brutal cleaver work, perhaps we can do some more delicate editing. Teji 14:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Use as a condemnation of interracial relationships" deleted

The whole section is based on weasel words and trends extrapolated from what two people feels. The last sentence is especially strange: In the past, racial supremacists opposed such relationships (now they don't?), though today in the United States, critics of interracial dating are sometimes from non-White ethnic groups (and that never happened before?) Kaitenbushi 02:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Then consider cleaning up the section instead of blanking it out. I've re-added it without the specific sentences you've objected to. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I should have discussed it before deleting it. But here are the reasons why I think the whole section should be deleted: First paragraph ("Many object...and without reason."): Who are many? Where are the sources? Second paragraph ("It is also the basis of angst...social disapproval of an Asian fetish."): The conclusion that the term Asian Fetish leads to angst is based on personal testemonies by two people. Hardly statistically valid. And original research. Third paragraph: (Many people consider...by stigmatizing them): Again, who are many and where are the sources? Kaitenbushi 09:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right that the section is lacking sources and is using some weasel words, but the section is also very important in bringing NPOV balance to the article. What we need is some referencing work, not deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that this article has been through some hard edit wars, and that people would like to have a little rest while the article is in a "balanced" state. But I still have some problems with the wait-and-see approach: 1) Using original research to balance out an article is not WP policy. 2) "The other side" also contains a lot of original research/unsourced claims. If balance is the worry, let's cut on both sides. 3) If we say "Let's wait and see what happens", there is a great chance that nothing will ever happen. 4) There might be no material out there to back up the claims. But I don't want to start any edit war. I suggest we flag the section appropriately, wait two weeks and, if nothing has happened, remove original research. In the meantime I might go through other sections of the article and identify problems, of which there are many. Honestly, I would say it is better to cut this article to the bone and end up with a stub, rather than this collection of unverified claims. Just my two cents, though. Kaitenbushi 10:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, I'm pretty sure if we spend some time on it, we could find sources for that section so that it doesn't look like original research. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Context for sources

Are Sheridan Prasso, Vanessa Hue, and Tracy Quan good sources? I'm not sure somebody new to the article would be familiar with them. Lindentree 03:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't you mention that Phoebe Eng, Vicky Nam, and Erika Kim are bad sources? It seems that you are an WM/AF relationship supporter, since you didn't want to delete Phoebe Eng, Vicky Nam, and Erika Kim (even these sources just as bad). You seem to be secretly attempting to remove the ideas made by anti-intermarriage advocates named Sheridan Prasso, Vanessa Hue, and Tracy Quan, from this article. Secretly trying to make this article biased toward supporting intermarriage by deleting the detractors (Sheridan Prasso, Vanessa Hue, and Tracy Quan) will violate NPOV, since all the sources are just as bad. Yes, there are some non-Asians attracted to Asian women because they have stereotypes of them such as submissiveness, intelligent, and their physical features. Attempting (or allegedly attempting) to disclaim that all non-Asians that are attracted to Asian women do not have these sexual stereotypes of them, just because you (appear to) do not, is arrogant, ignorant, egotistical, original research and violates the NPOV policy.

71.175.32.20 20:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who cited any of these authors originally, nor do I have any real opinion on their respective viewpoints. My concern was that there is no background information available on the authors I mentioned, which makes it more difficult to assess their views. Since you seem to be more familiar with them, perhaps you could add this information to the article. Lindentree 07:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I added some context for Tracy Quan, but upon examination of her reference, she doesn't seem to be an "anti-intermarriage advocate". Quite the opposite, in fact.... Vanessa Hue's argument and background aren't clear to me either. I don't know anything about Sheridan Prasso, besides the fact that she wrote The Asian Mystique. Lindentree 08:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

An outsider's opinion

Several problems exist concerning this article:

(1) "Asian fetish" is initially defined as a "sexual preference for asian people." Obviously this is not an adequate, nor accurate, definition as the definition would logically extend to include most Asian people themselves, who like other races (for better or worse) tend to prefer sexual relations within their own race.

Some might say Asians can have an Asian fetish. Teji 18:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(2) Later, however, "asian fetish" is more widely defined as a "stereotyping and objectification of Asians in Western society." Which is the real definition? While, the latter may include the former, it cannot logically be concluded that all persons who have a sexual preference for Asian people necessarily stereotype or objectify all Asians, nor do all people who stereotype and objectify Asians necessarily possess a sexual preference for Asians. Is it assumed that the possession of a sexual preference for any particular person(s) necessarily objectifies that person(s)? Though original research, I have evidence that "asian fetish" as defined by the two definitions, is not exclusive to "Western society." So-called "asian fetishists," at least as (poorly) defined in this article, exist in the near east and northern Africa.

Neither is the "real" definition. Words can have more than one definition you know. Teji 18:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(3) This term, or at least the idea it presumably is meant to convey (assuming the first definition is the dominant one), is much older than Hwang's 1988 play. So why is that the reference of choice?

Well Hwang is the only somewhat legitimiate citation on this page, although he uses the term "yellow fever", which may or may not be the same as "asian fetish." Teji 18:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(4) As has been stated before, "asian fetish" is a misnomer as it, if it truly exists at all, is not really a fetish at all, and the article should specifically state this to at least educate the ignorant who perpetuate its inaccurate use.

Right, it isn't a fetish, but if all words could be defined by the subwords that make them up, the whole world might be easier. Unfortunately this is not the case. I used to have a paragraph in here that make it explicit that it is not actually a fetish but "fetish" is used colloquially. The article got a massive edit recently which removed all the bad (thank God), but some of the reasonable too. Teji 18:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(5) A disclaimer exists at the top of this page suggesting that the term "asian fetish" is not inclusive of interracial relationships; however, this is not the case at all. Colloquially, the term is often used in reference to white males who exclusively participate in interracial relationships with Asian women (colloquially known as "yellow fever"). In fact, if we choose the first definition: "a sexual preference for asian people," then all of those who act upon that preference, i.e. engages in some sort of sexual activities with Asian people, are indeed within a relationship of some sort. Besides, the disclaimer makes no sense in light of the existence of a section with the heading: "Use as a condemnation of interracial relationships."

Read the sentence carefully, it says the article is not about interracial relationships. Teji 18:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(6) Who exactly acknowledges or originally defined the existence of an "asian fetish"? From reading the article, I'd gather that the term was defined and perpetuated primarily by Asian Americans. Do non-Asian Americans or non-American Asians acknowledge the existence of a so-called "asian fetish"?

Unfortunately the term, in my opinion, is a neologism and is only used colloquially. I'm not saying the concept is new, just the terminology for it. The usage goes from tongue-in-cheek to activist. Teji 18:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(7) Most of the references are of dubious quality, written by those with little academic/journalistic stature. Aren't there any "real" sociologists that have defined or commented on this phenomena?

Pretty much no. Most of the references are things like internet forums, internet zines, and angry activists. Yeah, this article sucks. But for some reason, nobody wants to delete it. Maybe it can just merge with another article. Teji 18:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Because of these problems, I am left never really understanding exactly what "asian fetish" is. Is it a sexual proclivity for Asians by non-Asians? Is it an objectification of the entire Asian race/ethnicity based on created, false stereotypes (primarily those involving the eroticization/exotification of Asian females) presumably perpetuated by the non-Asian majority of a society in which the Asian represents the minority population? Or is it the obsession/compulsion non-Asian, mainstream societies has for the more superficial aspects of Asian culture? Instead, I only see numerous, referenced examples of primarily Asian-American youth writing subpar analyses, in primarily nonacademic venues, of perceived Asian stereotypes that are unfairly hoisted upon them by non-Asian Americans; however, these authors themselves seem unsure of exactly what "asian fetish" is.

While this topic is definitely of interest, the article as it stands is almost original research or at the very least NPOV as it only really presents the Asian-American viewpoint of the argument, and the topic is clearly a lot more complex than presented to date. At the very least, can we at least get a definitive definition of "asian fetish"? 69.139.75.80 04:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I feel for you. I looked around some and there really isn't very good research on this thing in particular. Many of the people who made/edited this page (and I think the sex crimes against asian women page) were basically activists with a specific agenda who promulgated baseless information (e.g. Asian Fetish causes crime--even though the stats don't show it) and emotional rhetoric. Teji 18:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I made the case early this year on this page to delete the whole article. It is true that there is no scientific research at all to prove some sort of pathological "fetish" or "fever" that non-asian races have for asians. Indeed, there must be a very clear distinction made between simple attraction and a pathological fetish. However, this would make their case much weaker, because when you make this distinction, what you find is the fact that healthy, perfectly normal attractions that people have all the time for specific characteristic is found in countless thousands of combinations in many different ways: hair color preferences, financial preferences, career preferences, lifestyle preferences, including racial preferences. The fact is, every single person in the world is attracted to sometimes very unique characteristics and traits in the people that they are romantic with. Of course, this is never considered to be a pathological fetish.

Until now. According to Gong and his friends, non-asians who date asian women are pathological maniacs with the potential to inflict violent crime against asian women. Non-asian men who have an attraction to asian women are monsters — and they should be feared. They always have ulterior motives whenever they date an asian women. They think all asian women "are good wives," and "love to have sex all the time." It should be noted clearly that this is not only a terrible insult to the non-asians who are simply attracted or interested in another race, it is also a terrible insult to asian women. It implies that they are all stupid and have no discernment between men who are quality and men who are un-balanced. They are just fragile little ladies with no ability to choose with wisdom who they are attracted to, and who they want to be with. Indeed, these helpless, un-empowered asian women must be warned about, and saved from these horrible non-asian men with this odd, bizarre "asian fever." Indeed, the authors of this article would claim that these odd, bizarre non-asian men — who, 98% of the time simply have a simple attraction to asian women — are very capable of violent crimes against asian women. I cannot think of anything more irresponsible than this unfounded and dangerous accusation. If I were as irresponsible as the authors, I would refer us all the the Virginia Tech incident concerning Cho Sung Hui. It was a Korean American student who picked up a gun and killed more people in one day than any other person has in the history of the United States of America. I really, really struggle to not feel that this is very significant. My question now is this: are non-asian men really the horrible monsters with "asian fever" that this article would portray them as?

Essentially, what you have with this article is a group of asian men who rush to the article's rescue when logical, un-emotional minds would delete it. They have a personal agenda that is driven by mostly their disdain for asian women who choose to date men from other races. In order for them to recover their sense of self worth, they have to demonize the men who sometimes have relationships with asian women in the hopes that asian women will reject all non-asian relationships. Computer1200 06:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I have never said anything of the sort, and have only sought to maintain a balanced point of view in this article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Computer1200 is not very intelligent and obviouslly has a chip on his shoulder. One thing, go ahead and refer to Cho Sung Hui, it is an anacryonysm. If you want to talk about body count to body count, the facts are these, if we were to take history in its entirety, not only could we conclude that whites are the most barbaric peoples on Earth but, if we believed in an "eye for an eye" concept, that they are in their entirety deserving of total destruction from the Earth. 1. Enslavement of African/attempted colonization of Africa 2. Extermination of North Americans 3. Attempted Exxtermination of South Americans 4. Attempted Colonization of parts of the Asia-Pacific. In total, nearly 1/5 of humanity was wiped out in the 1700s through European evils. I don't have time to go on and on about how evil Europeans really are. So please go ahead and mention the one time a Asian (this case Asian American) went brezerk. The fact is, he probably went crazy cause of racism and other white imposed stresses. How many thosuands of whtie losers go crazy and shoot up schools in America ? Yeah the ratio is probably much larger then 1000:1 in terms of white shootings relative to asians. BTW genius, the VTech shootings were not the worst school shootings in history let alone the worst mass-murder in history. Do you have the ability to count? Even a trite example of 9-11 could be summoned to come up with a trivial counter-example. WikiIsforLamers 07:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, all us whities with "asian fever" are pretty stupid, so you'll forgive me, OK? But no apologies. When people accuse me of having some sort of bizarre "fever" or "fetish" when it is simply not true, well, yes, it makes me upset. Regarding VT, there is no argument that "Europeans" have made mistakes. Of course they have. It's funny: You act like your ancestors and contemporaries are somehow incapable of stomping on human rights. Don't tell me about the colonization of the West Indies by the Dutch and then blame it on me just because I'm white. That makes you sound sophomoric. VTech is not an issue of ancient history as you seem to believe; it happened two months ago. And VTech was indeed the single worst school gun massacre in the history of the United States. If you know of another, feel free to post it — genius. Thanks.Computer1200 08:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Tsk tsk tsk tsk, the worst school massacre occured in Bath, Michihgan. Some white loswer bombed the school killing almost 50 people, most little children. Further you initially stated and I quote "It was a Korean American student who picked up a gun and killed more people in one day than any other person has in the history of the United States of America" which I responded too. Not only is this statement incorrect, it is comically so. And yes, I don'[t know if all pathetic white losers like yourself are stupid but you seem to be. Afterall making comments like the one just quoted must indicate a mind replete with idiocy.

Listen to me one more time: the worst GUN massacre in history. It was the worst massacre using a gun in a school in the history of the United States. If you can show me another one, then let me know. Until then... Computer1200 01:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry, White losers usually find more creative and devious ways to kill people. Like creating bombs and running explosive filled trucks into buildings. My bad. WikiIsforLamers 03:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As for the fact that your acncestors are hte most dispicable human being on Earth, it's true. According to estimates around 30 - 80 million natives of North America were EXTERMINATED by colonist. Close to 10 million out of 11 million were killed in the Inca territories, The Aztec Territories lost 95% of its population from 20 milllion in the 1500s (4 times the size of then England) to 1.2 million by the early 1600s. The natives of the Central American islands (carribians) lost their entire population. Then of course there is the great African enslavement,which enslaved or killed well over 10 - 15 million people. This was in a world whose total population was not more then 620 million people. Europeans effectively wiped out at least 1/5 of the world's population.

It's so sad when someone would try to paint someone living today as evil because of something "Europeans" did almost 500 years ago. Again, it's not academic, it proves no point related to the Wiki article we are debating, and it further proves how angry and bitter you are inside. I'm not jabbing at you my friend. I feel bad for you, and I hope you get help. But as I said below, this is not the place to debate the history of Europeans mistakes. I will debate that with you if you like, but not here. Computer1200 01:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the fact you are attempting to white wash it as "something done almost 500 years ago" as if that mitigates the actions show that htere is a certain degree of vile and evil in your opinion. I know its hard for you to accept facts and that's fine, we're not all born to do worthwhile things, that's why there is a plethora of jobs for everyone even the most droll of individuals. We need janitors in the world, we need sanitory "engineers," we need shelf organizers, we need all these things. It's great that with people like yourself around, we will never run short of labor for these valuable jobs. WikiIsforLamers 03:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Try comparing that too ANYTHING ANYONE has done and it becomes so trivial as to be laugable. If we took all the barbaric acts Europeans have done in their history, NO ONE could deny that they are the worst human beings on Earth. Far more then "some mistakes" as you seem to try to, forgive me the pun, "White Wash." WikiIsforLamers 17:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for all the balanced, reasoned, non-emotional, logical input. Great. That really helps all us "loser white guys" with "the most despicable human beings on Earth" as ancestors. Come on, guy, you expect anyone to listen to you when you absolutely cannot control your emotions? You're hatred and seething anger is basically evidence of my point from the very beginning: many asian guys are deeply and intensely angry. And also, do you REALLY want to get into a dialogue about the history of asian atrocities both past and present? China / Darfur ring a bell? (here's a little Wiki help for you: [6] ). How about DPRK shipping thousands of tons of drugs all over the world? Myanmar? Cambodia? Oh, and then the little problem of Japan and WWII. Im serious, if you really want to debate this, I'm glad to do it via email. But this is not the place. Let's stay on topic here. Computer1200 01:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL Are you really trying to compare the attempted ensalvement of a continent, the genocide of all peoples on another continent and attempted colonization ofo various parts of the world with Dafur? First of all, Whites expliclty and directly commited the afformentioned crimes, go ahead try to compare the two, it will just be a further testiment to your idiocy. Again I know you must be inbred and not very bright so concepts like numbers and size don't mean much to you. So when I say 1/5 of humanity was exterminated by whites in the 1700s, you think 1/5 < 1 ==> small. I understand all these things so I'm not going to put it against you. The simple facts are that whites have commited the worst crimes against humanity in the history of human existence. Also the generlization that "all asian guys are deeply and intensely angry" again demonstrates the profound bias you have too this subject and hence irrelvence of input. You know reality isn't so recondite to others as it is to you. One day science will figure out a way to ameilorate the feeble minds of individuals such as yourself and I hope that when this day comes you will be able to see true reality in flash. Till then, stick with the goats man, I know some white dudes try to go for pigs and bulls but man, that's playing with fire. WikiIsforLamers 02:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, excellent buddy! More schoolboy insults. Really helps all of your arguments and makes you look intelligent. Incidentally, I can show your little list of white mistakes were also committed by Asians in Asian history. You seem to be a little shy also about recognizing Japan and WWII. I could think of a few words to describe folks like yourself, but I'll take the high road and refrain from racist, schoolboy insults. But it is convenient that you have you yourself to think you're actually capable of thinking deeply and intelligently about a subject. Cheers.Computer1200 12:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No one in Asia likes Japan. The only people who likes the Japanese are whites, since the Japanese behave as shameless lap dogs to whites (which they were attempting to imitate when they started their drive towards imperialism). No one denies Japanese killed many Chinese and Koreans and Fillipinos and many others in Asia. Then again, they hardly represent Asia and there were no trends in Asia where most of the states engaged in overseas genocide and colonization. However, the vast majority of non-slav Europeans engaged in just exactly that. Further, the Japanese did not kill 1/5 of mankind in their time. No normal human beings can dethrown Whites as the most monsterous peoples on Earth. Absolutely no one. White European history will serve as an eternal testiment to the evils mankind can do and the darkness that can come from man's depths. Again, I know you have probably had difficult times in arithemetic so when i say things like 60 million people wiped out or 15 million enslaved, their just "ink on paper." Whats the difference between 1 and 10000 right? Just a bunch of extra zeros. It must be really hard to accept the truth that your blood is the darkness. I understand, I'm only glad I'm not in a situation where I am totally shamed by my people's history. Then again shame is too weak of a word, I believe utterly disgusted would be more proper a phrase. I'm glad when the Grand Ming fleet anchored in East Africa in the early 1400s, they brought trade and peace greetings from the Ming Emeperor and not disease, shackles and tears to the African peoples. Such an idea never occured in their mind. Contrast this too a quote from Christopher Columbus: "They invite you to share anything they possess and show as much love as if their hearts went with it... How easy it would be to conver these people - and to make them work for us." This demonstrates the fundamental difference between white mentality and human mentality. Human beings of all color don't immediatly look to exploit each other for gain and evils. Unfortunatly, for whatever reason, whites have developed in such a barbaric and damnable place that they have developed a most depraved view of the world. It's quite sad, I pity them. Because, one day justice will be brought to them, and it will be severe indeed. WikiIsforLamers 01:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh, I see.... thanks for enlightening me, Wiki, with more racist invective. I never realized every single Japanese person was a "shameless lap=dog" to us evil Whities. Oh, and here's a good one: " It must be really hard to accept the truth that your blood is the darkness." Haha. Um... yeah, wiki, it is hard for me to accept that? I like this: "I understand, I'm only glad I'm not in a situation where I am totally shamed by my people's history. " Jeez, how'd you know? I've been sick to death for years about what Europe did in 1500, Wiki! I can't sleep! You are a hilarious example of a wierd, racist, odd little Asian man. As I said below: I'm sure glad all Asian men are not like you. As a matter of fact, I've never met someone so completely psycho as you. Wow.Computer1200 10:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, please everyone should observe that the more I flesh out this troll the more he reveals his bias. Note: "Little asian man," and other subtle tones and statemtns most of these faceless white losers invoke online. Computer1200, it must be pretty sad to live your life, spending an inordinate amount time online in denial of yourself. BTW, no one in Asia likes Japan. Also, I know you probably don't care abotu People of Color especially Africans or Native Americans who were extermianted by your vile ancestors. But I'm just glad that you confirmed it yourself. Thank You. And again stay witthe goats man.WikiIsforLamers 18:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha. "Stay with the goats, man." that's a good one, buddy! Also: "You don't care about people of color." Awesome, seeing that one of my best friends is an Asian guy who is completely secure and balanced in who he is. Well... I'm going to go pop some popcorn, because this is no less than superb entertainment! Cheers.Computer1200 22:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Computer1200, we both know you don't have any Asian American friends. And your latex woman dosn't count. Hit the books man, I hear the SATs are offered in the summer as well, maybe if you stopped playing your XBox you can study hard and get at least 1000. You could get into a community college with that score. It'll be a small step to progress. WikiIsforLamers 23:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Ok, you're right buddy: I don't have any Asian American friends; I have NEVER dated an asian girl; I only have plastic love dolls for girlfriends; I'm completely uneducated and attended a community college. How'd you know all that?! It's because you're such a clever guy, that's why. More entertainment on the way hopefully??Computer1200 05:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The term 'asian fetish' was created by those seeking to condemn AF/WM relationships. The definition of a fetish is a habitual erotic fixation that occurs in response to any object or nongenital part of the body. Please show me how this term is not biased. 'Yellow fever' is the more common term. I've been using Wikipedia for some time and only recently stumbled upon this article. From an individual who is neither an Asian male nor a white male with an asian gf/wife, I have no reason to pick a side. The language of this article honestly disturbs me more than any other I've seen due to the fact that even the article's title is a blantant POV. It's sad that users like Hong take such an unnatural interest in this subject. The case of Loving V. Virginia may have changed things legally but clearly there are still some social problems with regard to this issue. I suggest the whole article be scrapped as it breaks a number of the Wikipedia guidelines and offers little supporting evidence for either side. Seems like a lot of original research and NPOV. I feel like I'm reading an article written by the Dixiecrats on white/black interracial marriage CommonSense101 12:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Unnatural interest, indeed, Common Sense. I am not sure if you were around, but before the last edit (which does not satisfy the gaping need for the whole mess to be deleted), any non-asian who would be attracted to asian women was basically just a few hairs away from committing violent crimes against asian women. In fact, eventhough you're not white, they would probably freely include you in the messy pile of people who are making them nervous to the extent that they would invent pathologies, then try to back it up with anecdotes from wierd blogs and angry websites with dubious authors. Oh, and they seemed to have never felt any need for empirical evidence for the symantic mumbo-jumbo they've created and still try to defend. I continue to ask for deletion of the whole mess. Please join in if you feel the same.Computer1200 12:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

After removing all the crap (thank God), the article is very short. There really isn't much Wikipedia appropriate information available for this page (internet forums and activists opinions are not appropriate). So why don't we just merge this with some other page, say interracial relationships, and get rid of this page as a solo work. Though Hong disagrees, "Asian Fetish" is a neologism. By that I mean the term "Asian Fetish" is new, not the concept it represents. The lack of a reference for the term combined with everyone's widely varying gut understandings of the term is evidence enough of its novelty. Wikipedia is not for neologisms (and this is explicitly stated in policy), so let's merge the meager info here with another page, and make a passsing mention of the term on that page. Teji 17:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that one of you (Computer1200 or Teji) contact one of the top 50 wikipedia editors about coming in to handle all of this. There needs to be someone who will look at all of this objectively. I think that this article should be completely removed. However, redirecting "yellow fever" or "asian fetish" searches to "interracial relationships" may seem to falsely suggest that those terms apply to all interracial relationships. Maybe the best solution would be to re-name this article "Yellow Fever" and say within the article that critics of AF/WM relationships suggest that some of those WM have an "asian fetish", though fetish is a term which typically applies to objects or body parts rather than a race. Up to you guys --CommonSense101 20:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be looked at by someone who is in Asian American studies. Random white males who have a bone to pick with the Asian-American community does not constitute as profound editors and unfortunatly this is exactly the sort of pathetic white males that have come on to this article and attempted to sabotage it.WikiIsforLamers 07:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Now who's got the chip on his shoulders?? The problem with this whole issue is the fact that a bunch of Asian guys with an agenda are trying to invent some sort of odd pathology in order to make themselves feel better. "Asian American Studies?" Hilarious. The whole article is aimed at non-asian males! I'm supposed to sit back at let the "Asian American Studies" boys have their way with an article desperately trying to define me in destructive ways? Don't think so, Wikils. Furthermore, you are providing absolutely NO logical arguments for not removing this article. Why don't you come up with a good, intelligent argument for creating myths about white men, and then come back, post it here, and we will all debate whether it makes sense. Take care.Computer1200 09:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the above tiff, that sounds like a good idea to get some objective view, CommonSense. Can you tell me how to contact one of the top 50 wikipedia editors? Is there a policy page on this? Teji 15:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Common Sense and Teji. Let's do get some outside objective help to come in. I will help in any way to move this forward. Computer1200 01:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actaully when Asian American studies papers are posted here they will be of infinte more merit then anything you have contribtued. Because Academic Subject > White Losers bitching about things. I'm sorry, your pathetic, serisouly, I wish I could change that, I really do. When I see a dog on the street injurred I wish I could help it, the same with you. However, reality is reality and maybe its not the reality you want to live in but hey maybe you can take some crack. I understand alot of white losers resort to snorting crack and it works for them. You can try right? WikiIsforLamers 17:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Not only do you reveal your bias in your above post but you reveal your contempt for a legit field of Acadmic inquiry, to which, this topic primarily belongs too. If this page is not a farce they will take your opinions now as they should have in the past, the diatrabs of a pathetic white male. Otherwise this page is a total joke, to allow people who reject the premise of even the existence of Asian American studies to edit this page is like allowing people who reject the premise of the Holocaust to edit the Holocaust entry. WikiIsforLamers 17:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What bias? I would appreciate you leaving off the invective in your posts and actually post some reasons for your disdain. Show me proof that I'm biased. In what way am I biased toward academic enquiry when this article has been the complete antithesis of academic investigation from the beginning? And how is it that Asian Americans are the only ones anointed to speak and debate about this issue when the very subject of the article is a bizarre disease that I am supposed to have as a non-asian male! I don't have the right to tell you "No, in fact this is not the case. How do I know? Because I am a non-asian male -- the very heart of this topic." And when you use the term "pathetic white male" it really helps your arguments. Excellent.Computer1200 01:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What bias? Again reality isn't so recondite to others as it is to you. This should be a sign that you need to seek aid for your inferment. Anyone who dosn't even believe Asian American studies should exist is not a person that should be taken seriosully in editing this board. The fact that no one has mentioend this reveals that in fact that most editors have been in direlction of their supposed "neutral duty" to create a academically sound and neutral article. Not that I'm suprised, wikipedia is for lamers. You can't have plebian minds attempt to creat an universal encyclopedia. Your just going to get this sort of absurdity where the majority population is able to subtly implant its bias. BTW, when i use the term "pathetic white male" i'm merely inserting an adjective to describe someone who has from my observation spent a little too much time attempting to censor away ideas that he dosn't agree with because of insecurity. Pretty funny, for a group of people that suppodly don't exist, you all do fit a pretty common indicator cohorts. WikiIsforLamers 02:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Listen WikiIs, it completely betrays the fact that you have no argument when you resort to schoolboy insults. Does it bother me that you are racist? Not really, I couldnt care less what you think. Monkeys in a zoo, huh? Hey, that's a clever racist epithet! Does it help your argument? Not at all. Even while you toss racist insults, you STILL have no argument for your claims you are making. Now: I have nothing at all against Asian American Studies. When did I say it should not exist? My point was that one of the problems with this article is that it was written almost entirely by Asians, which made it imbalanced and racist. It has improved, but there is still no merit for its existence as an article. And also, incidentally, I'm sure there are plenty of intelligent Asian Americans that will see through the silliness here. Unfortunately, you're not one of them. Evenso, you have still not in any way referred to content in the article and the debate here and made an intelligent argument. It's interesting, because you seem to really think your pretty darned intelligent. And again: I refuse to let insecure, bitter asian men like yourself define me and my relationships. I'm perfectly happy and glad to be who I am. Sorry, buddy. Take care.Computer1200 11:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actaully I was referring to you specifically as an individual when I gave the analog of "Monkies in a zoo." so it is not racist. Unless you consider your singular self as a race, in which case why yes, I am being racist, that is I consider you an idiot. Anyways, you must not be good at analogies or reading comprehension so I'll explain one for you: I was referring to a 1:1 conversation as being analogus in quality to 1:1 interaction with feeding a inferior animal in a zoo. I understand that your ability to discern anything of merit is lacking and hence I shall not tax what little mental capacity you may have with further detail. Had it been the case that I was implying whites were like monkies I would probably have said "they are like interacting with some monkies" which directly and implicitly indicates plural and univeral relationship as opposed to the limited and singular. You should also notice that the sentence immediatly prior stated I was not conversing with an erudite individual (that is yourself) and that I was speaking to a forlorned knave (again yourself). Hence, it should give you a direct clue that the next sentence (the beginning of the analogy) is directly related to the previous sentence in structure (since I do not have any connectives that would indicate otherwise). Irrespective, I think its pretty obvious to anyone who is reading these conversations that Computer1200 is just a pathetic white loser similiar to others who have a fetish for Asian women (or at least percieves that he does). He has attacked this article specifically because it underlines his insecurity about himself. Notice how much time he has spent in censoring the article to fit his own "non-bias." It's rather pathetic, I came on here really only out of entertainment at first, but I see that something needs to truly be done with this article. What this article needs are people who are in Asian American studies who have reserached and pondered about these issues in some profunditude. Note, from my understanding the article never pointed out that ALL WM/AF interactions wre fetishes, however Computer1200 immediatly seemed to have jumped on that particular facet of it. It is a strong indication that he himself has subconciously suspected that he was one of these individuals. I know someone in Asian American studies and I'll direct them to this page. WikiIsforLamers 01:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh my God. I'm Laughing out loud. Congratulations, Wiki! That is the biggest batch of complete BS mumbo jumbo I've read in a while. Now you're just entertaining me.. you are so determined to "diss" me that you're just shooting yourself in the foot. You are truly the definition of a bitter, angry, asian man. Thank God all Asian men are not like you. You obviously have no arguments, and you're hiding it with complete, absolute nonsense. Again: GREAT ENTERTAINMENT WIKI.. keep up the good work! Computer1200 10:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually Computer1200 your comments above betray your ineptness. Are you still in High School? Cause I'm going to give you the benfit of the doubt casue I'd like to hope that even pathetic white males such as yourself arn't so stupid as to not understand simple analogies. You certainly can't be college educated otherwise you would understand simple things like "analogies" and "sentence structure." Again everyone should note that the more angry Computer1200 gets the more he slips the tongue, he is revealing slowly his disdain for not only Asian American studies and this topic but now evidnelty "Asian men," his snide remarks as "bitter, angry, asian man" these terms are terms that he most likelly uses to describe the plenary of Asian men. To his credit he has inserted comments like "Thank God all Asian men are not like you," to shroud his true feelings. WikiIsforLamers

Laughing out loud, buddy. You are a COMPLETE PSYCHO. Whao.Computer1200 22:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoooa junior, breath. You shoulnd't get so angry. Hit the books, educate yourself. You don't want to be ignorant of things forever do you?WikiIsforLamers 23:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha. You're classic buddy! Computer1200 05:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, this debate the two of you seem to be having isn't really about the article's content any more. Could you please move it to your respective talk pages? Lindentree 03:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A proper debate would require two erudite individuals. Unfortunatly this dialogue consist of myself and a forlorned knave. What we see here is more analogous to me feeding the monkies in a zoo. In all seriousness though, from my reckoning you have gone through 8 pages of nonsense and not one of yous eem to have had the bright idea of looking at Asian American studies or someone who is a specialist in this field for support. That's like writing an article about American history and deliberately ignoring the American history scholar for enligthenment.WikiIsforLamers 04:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The main Asian American page hasn't found a specialist yet either apparently, and no one has come forward to offer their expertise.(at least to the best of my knowledge) I'm sure his or her contributions would have been welcomed. Lindentree 04:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The main issue is that the field has only recently began to output a significent amount of tractable material (for the non-specialist). Alot of the subject was until recently were subsumed in various other fields of sociology, politial science, history etc.. I suspect in the next several years we will have enough materials to support many of the assertions stated with academic citations. I wonder if Afro-Studies peoples have the same problems with white troll trying to censor their articles. Fortunatly for them Afro-Studies started in the 60s, so they must have a treasure trove of citable materials. WikiIsforLamers 04:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I've said so many times before, this place is not a soapbox. Whether you want to rant on and on about how Asian men have issues or you want to rant on and on about how white people are evil, do it in your blog or find some internet forum to do it at. WikiIsforLamers - you need to grasp the fact that by its very nature, anybody can edit Wikipedia. The "specialists" that you are looking for are busy doing their own research and writing their own papers and books. That's why it's important that an article on Wikipedia is well-sourced. We are not supposed to write anything that is based on our own opinions. My next point goes to these guys you've been pointlessly arguing with - the content of this article is based on the sources that are provided. It matters little what your personal opinions are on the subject of "Asian fetish", as long as the article is balanced. And I know some of you know this because it's pretty obvious you're experienced editors who are using socks. I do wonder if any of you have actually read the article - it does cover how the idea of "Asian fetish" has been used to condemn interracial relationships. And it doesn't say things like white men are diabolical beasts if they are attracted to Asian women. Furthermore, I have never injected my own personal opinions about the topic in the article, nor have I even stated them in this Talk page. So stop accusing me of saying things I have not said.

Really, all of you just need to shut the hell up already. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Amassing source material

Ok white trolls and apologist aside, we need to start amassing source material in Asian American studies for this article. If the content volume on this topic is not suffecient, I'm afraid I beleive the article cannot be improved until more research has been published. I know there are alot of corroborating articles about this topic and the media perceptions in general in AA studies but I won't have access to online citations networks for the next two months. If anyone has access to the networks please dig up anything you can. The problem with the article in the past is that both sides, the white trolls and their apologist and those who wanted to write an article about this phenomenon were really inserting their own words into the article. We need to minimize that and quote extensively. That way trolls and sabotouers can't obfuscate the salient issues with their puctilious wiki-chicanary. WikiIsforLamers 02:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha. Let me ask you a question, Wiki: you're Korean, right? If so, I would laugh really hard, because what all my asian friends say about Korean men would be true! Hilarious. I knew for sure after your continued your racist rants to include the Japanese.. Congratulations, you are one of the most racist, irresponsible, and reckless people I've known! If you think any intelligent person of ANY RACE is going to respect you when you are full of hate, then you're dreaming. You can be sure of this: I will not leave this article. And you can rally all your little buddies all you want. You can act like you know who I am and what my agenda is when you don't and I don't care. I've dated lots of women from all different races, and yes, I've dated plenty of Asian women. You know what asian women say (who pursued me, by the way), wiki? They say they are completely sick and tired of pissy, arrogant, immature whiners like you who get mad at them when they date non-asians. Please understand: these are not my words-- these are the words of very intelligent, attractive, asian women I've dated. They say very clearly to me that they would NEVER date someone like you. Would they date normal, balanced Asian men? Of course. You? You're dreaming, buddy. One of my main beefs with the implications of this "asian fever" (that you and all your little buddies insist that I have) is that it completely disrespects some of my good asian friends (both male and female) who are cheering me on, and asking me to bring some sanity to this whole ridiculous affair.

But please Wiki, will you let me know if you're Korean so I can tell my friends? Thanks.Computer1200 10:08, 14 June 2007

(UTC)

This is the most obvious statment yet. I really hope that it strikes without a doubt that we do have a white loser troll sabotaging this article. Notice how he now switches to direclty attacking Korans (which unfortuantly for you Computer1200 I am not). He now reveals his true feelings and is now himself throwing out the platitudes of white losers such as himself ""ive dated plenty of Asian woman" (has to reassure himself), "You know what asian women say:" (Again reassurign himself and attempting to attack Asian men). It's pretty sad Computer1200, because soemoen who spends so much time on a wiki site trying to ensure his viewpoint and his viewpoint alone is supreme is a sign of a very pathetic and controlling individual. As I stated I went on here for entertainment, had I not been visiting a friend and on vacation I would not spend the amount of energy you seemed to have exerted in something so unproductive. Do you have a job Computer1200? Or do you mouch off your Asian girlfriendds? Are you laying on the couch right now typing while your "girlfriend" is out working? We see it all the time in the community, soem white racist loswer who dates Asian women, usually not very succesful, not very intelligent, but SOWs fall for them. Luckily only the garbage date these people, most real AA sistas don't bother with morons such as these. However, now that I see more of his statements I don't beleive any Asian chick, even FOB Asian chicks who don't know better, would bother with someone like this. Most likelly the "Asian woman" he's talking about is his Asia Carrera latex blow up doll. Anyways, Computer1200 I have no problem with you dating Asian women and I've never stated that I do. What I have stated is that you are obviosully a loser and your comments above has emphasized the point. Not only are you a loser but you fall under the same category of most other white losers who thinks himself better then People of Color and specifically Asian Americans. To all serious people on this board, we should start to amass more material for this topic. Unfortunatly because America is replete with pathetic white losers like Computer1200, this page will always be sullied by their presence, however perseverance and proper citations will eventually silence thier carping. I hope an editor who has some time can actually go ahead and put this together. I can get sources once I'm back home but that won't be for a few months. Anyone has any ideas of what journals we should check?WikiIsforLamers 18:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI: it is my asian friends who say that Koreans are sometimes over the top. So get mad at them. I was just curious. Also, buddy, I am a partner at a successful consultancy. We do work all over the world, I'm a big grown up man, and yes: I've dated lots of asian women. Most of them pursue me. Sorry to burst your bubble. Having said that, I think that Asian women I've known are really great people. I respect them, and many of them tell me privately that they are completely sick of your type of psycho-asian-nazi venom that you spew all over the place. Ive heard them say many times that they could never marry someone like you. And yes, I say it again: all asian men are NOT like you. I know some very intelligent, secure, great-looking asian men who have no problem dating any women of any race. They surely do not accuse me of some sort of "fever" or "fetish" when I happen to date an Asian woman. But again, I don't think you have any clue how psycho you sound, not only to me, but to many asians as well.Computer1200 22:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Computer1200, it's ok to admit that you havn't entered or graduated college. We won't hold it against you. Seriosully, it's still not too late. In the long run, having a degree will allow you to accure much mroe capital then you invest in it in debt. You should educate yourself, don't spend all your time with your latex woman and attemtping to censor this wiki page. It's not healthy I'm sure. The first thing you should do is to improve your reading comprehension and vocabulary if you want to do well on your SAT. Perhaps study analogies and antonyms it was a significnet part of the SAT when I took it way back when and I can tell that you're not very good at crticial thinking. You should also study history and other things while your in school cause your obviosully very ignorant of most things like Asian and European history. It's good to know about these things so you can discuss these things with some cognizance and not sound as if your mind is dwelling in some turbid medium. You should also stop attacking Koreans and Asian Americans, you'll never get a real Asian chick that way, and i know you want to upgrade from your latex godess. Anyways, good luck in your education and stop being a patheitc troll. Again, trolls aside, does anyone know of any good journals in AA studies? WikiIsforLamers 22:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Wiki: "i never graduated from college." You're right. Feel better? Haha. And while your encouraging me to not attack people, you might want to turn down the asian-nazi meter a couple notches, K? Cheers.Computer1200 05:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There aren't many journals specifically on Asian American Studies, but here's one: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_asian_american_studies/ Also, enough with the insults already. Both of you guys need to review WP:NPA, as this flame war is extremely unproductive. Lindentree 23:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll try to stop feeding the trolls. My insitutional subscription dosn't seem to have this journal available online. I'll have to wait till I get back home to get a hardcopy at the reserach library. I know there are a couple big AA Studies departments in the Cal schools and I know Illinois, Michigian and OSU all have new departments as well. Should we try to contact the DGS of these departments ? Has that ever been done in Wikipedia? I think we need some nexus where we can start our searches. Otherwise it'll bel ike trying to find a needle in a pile of needles. WikiIsforLamers 23:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm ready to talk rationally. Always have been. WikiIsForLamers has come on the scene with some of the most disturbing racist invective I've ever read. I'm humored by it on one hand, but deeply disturbed on the other hand that he is acting like he represents Asian Americans. My friends are appalled at this kind of crazy racism. It's like asking Larry to Cable Guy to represent me. Truly sad. But I am working on some points that I will present soon. Some rational points that are hopefully logical and will help communicate one side of this issue. Cheers.Computer1200 05:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Computer1200, get to reading those books seriosully, using the same adjectives "invectives" over and over again. How do you expect to get past the 1000 point on the SAT? Jesus Christ, what are they teaching you kids these days? Certainly not history. I'm glad your trying to use analogies now, but you got to have a more prodigious vocabulary then what your demonstrating thus far or none of that analogies practice si going to be any good for the SAT. In any event, I'm glad that you've calmed down, I know you're at that age where the hormones are kicking in and your not thinking correctly. It's ok. BTW Computer1200, nothing I've stated is racist. It is merely history. I'm sorry that you can't get past that, so please stop this circumloquity, it's getting rather old. Then again, you certainly to harbor some inner hatred for Asians and Asian men. What happened? Asian classmate picking on you? Stole a girl you really liked? It's ok man, there are alot of other girls out there, and I'm willing to bet that with a little self-confidence and perhaps a little hard work, you can find a nice underclassmen to date. But you're not going to get there by spending all your time trying to censor articles on wikipedia or playing with your "woman." Seriouslly dude, hit the books and maybe the gym and stop playing the XBox and you'll eventually get there. In any event, Lindentree, you go to UCSC right? Is AA Studies offered as a seperate department there or are you guys subsumed under Poli Sci, History or IR? What are the salient issues with this article in your opinion? Lets open a dialogue for all non-specious editors. This page has been stifled for too long.WikiIsforLamers 05:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiki, I'm really going to miss your little attempts at mind games, mental gymnastics, and semantic cartwheels, which continue to impress and entertain, although they are not intellectually compelling. And then all those great insults! I must say it is indeed flattering that you would spend so much time straining your noodle to convince me that I am list of things, that, although not true, are indeed cute. I do admire your spunk. it's all very entertaining, but alas, it is time for me to stop having so much fun, and expound more clearly on my ideas here.

Computer1200, nonthing I write requires even a remote strain. Perhaps you are attempting to interpose your own capabilities in me, but that would be a gross error since you usually grow mentally from high school to post-graduate. WikiIsforLamers 17:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Now, although Wiki is passionate about the fact that this is a topic that only for Asian American Studies majors to handle, I would officially find myself at variance with that. Why are Asian American scholars the only ones anointed to speak on this topic when the topic is squarely aimed at me as a white male who happens to occasionally date Asian women? Indeed, if the topic is about me, why is it that I have no right to speak into it? In anycase, I am offering a small foray into my views about this article — and why we should delete this article in its entirety — in the new section below entitled, "Problems with the Wikipedia article 'Asian Fetish.'" I am presenting two main problems that come to mind at the moment, but I will probably bring other relevant points later. I would appreciate all input and look forward to discussing it further. I do expect that Wiki will cease with the humorous attempt to somehow convince me, himself and others that I am somehow incapable of offering my views with an elucidative defense. To the contrary, I can indeed do that very thing. In fact, in many ways I do it for a living, and I do in fact have Asian American friends who are tired of being associated with Wiki's brand of intolerance and intellectual recklessness. CheersComputer1200 10:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't about you, unless you admit to have an Asian Fetish. Computer1200 dosn't seem to understand concepts of sets and subsets. Not suprising since he has not yet graduated high school and I persume he is not in any accelerated or gifted curriculum for logic and mathematics, otherwise he would not commit such mind-numbing errors of reason. Further, I suppose your right, anyone should be able to edit anything, why don't you go ahead and edit a entry about topological spaces. I mean you do live in a space that can be observed in a topology, hence it effects you. WikiIsforLamers 17:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, Wiki, one more time: you are the one saying I have a fetish when i date asian women. I contend that is not true, and it is also unfair to the asian women I date to say that they have no discernment about the quality of men they date. Any questions?Computer1200 22:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, UCSC and UC Merced are the only two UCs without anything resembling ethnic studies departments. UCSC only offers a few courses in the American Studies department; I just finished a course on Asian American women. I've read some of the books we're using as sources currently, namely Vicky Nam's Yell-oh Girls, Sheridan Prasso's The Asian Mystique, and Phoebe Eng's book. My primary concern is that those books aren't particularly scholarly, authoritative, or notable sources. I also think a section on different factors that play into the possible creation of "Asian fetish", such as the history of colonialism, social/structural biases, and media perceptions of Asian women, is necessary to make the article encyclopedic. However, I'm having problems coming up with reliable sources for something like that. Lindentree 06:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Journal Article Discussions

Yo Lindentree while i'm on break could you check out this jorunal: Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology and do an index search on your citations network in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. I suspect that specialist don't call the phenomeon we know off "Asian Fetish," if this is true, we need to find the technical term for this phenomenon. I'm goign to contact the DGS of my alma mater with the issue and hopefully he'll point me to some furtiive ground. WikiIsforLamers 06:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Using Legitimate Sources

Do any of the editors of this article have access to Asian American studies papers or books? The sources on this article seem to just be opinion pieces on College newspapers and on Asian-American blogs. In order to improve this article, I highly suggest that both sides on this issue find real studies on this topic. I tried to locate studies on the issue, but the best I could find were papers discussing how different racial groups ranked others with regard to general attractiveness. I'll check back in on this in a couple of weeks. I hope you guys improve your article and cease with the personal attacks. --CommonSense101 01:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've got one book, a history of Asian American women, but I can't find an online version to cite. The only journal articles I've found in my school's databases are only tangentially related. Lindentree 06:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)