Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

enough nonsense

It's time to cease with the nonsense surrounding this article. the terms asiaphile or asian fetish seem natural and a part of common knowledge; and numbers of google hits for each of these are in the 150,000s and more.

But if you believe the comments here on the talk page, then the terms seem not to be discussed well in published literature. this is rediculous.

Is it a problem with the term? (5 failed nominations for deletion would suggest that there is an ontological battle taking place, here.)

Or is it that, where slang terms are concerned, that means we'll find different words and usage in polite discourse? in which case, failure to find many uses of the term in referenced literature does not preclude the term from existing, it just means we'll have to expand our scope to common knowledge when we source slang material. urbandictionary may well be a valid source where slang is concerned.

Let's do a detailed search for the concepts underlying the asian fetish, regardless of usage.

It is probably safe to say that i have an asian fetish:

  • i have dated both vietnamese and korean women and find them to be fantastic;
  • i regularly eat raw fish with rice, ginger and sea weed;
  • i know how to use chop sticks;
  • i shop at asian markets in chinatown;
  • i wear and decorate with asian symbols;
  • i have studied feng shui and tai chi and shiatsu;
  • i go to karaoke parlors;
  • i match the prototypical character described at [2] (white male, 45yrs old, divorced)
  • i find engrish to be seriously cute

Therefore, apparently i can say with authority that the fetish is not restricted to sex; but it is obsessive, and sex appeal is a part of it; that appeal includes each of appearance, accent, personality, and work ethic.

Intuitively, a person with an asian fetish will likely overlap with my experience:

  • be interested in foreign culture;
  • be curious about the languages, linguistics, and character sets;
  • be curious about politics of the region;
  • be a fan of asian film and tv including anime.

Surely you can find supporting material for these claims? -- BukakiKid (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. If there aren't reliable sources covering the subject... --hippo43 (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

  • at fetish boutiques in Toronto[3], you will find that the asian fetish makes its way into fashion with dragons, bonzai, silk, animism, geisha, samurai, and ninja themes all being available.
  • Japanese rope bondage has massive appeal. Fetish Diva Midori will be happy to inform you of the art of restraint. Midori, Craig Morey, The Seductive Art of Japanese Bondage, Greenery Press, 2001. ISBN 1-890159-38-7.
  • Asian themes appear in fetish performance art[4].
  • Stunning asian beauty and fetishistic style make their way into films like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Battle Royale.
  • how could the notion of a battle haiku death match exist without massive audience appeal?[5][6] -- BukakiKid (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
No, because you haven't provided reliable sources that either make those claims or use the term in those ways. We are not reliable sources and all info has to be attributed to those.--Crossmr (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
"Nonsense surrounding this article?" Hardly. In fact, the unstudied arguments of "BukakiKid" demonizing non-Asians for being interested in Asian things as having some clinical, demented "fetish" betrays a continued, intense need on the part of Asian men to demonize, isolate and punish non-Asians who have any interest in Asia. It's disturbing and creepy. And racist. Further, all of these arguments might be used conversely against all Asians themselves who persist in living in the United States, exhibiting all of the characteristics in the lists of what "BukakiKid" uses to isolate those with his said "Asian fetish." By his definitions, we have a seriously gigantic number of Asians with "American-Fetish." Asians have moved here and stayed. Though some came generations ago for work, any proceeding generations could have easily returned; they have not. Could not the same unfair accusations about a "American-Fetish" be made of Asians living in America? If you are intellectually honest, yes, it could. If that is offensive to you as an Asian American because it is ridiculous for me to accuse you of a clinical obsession about America just because you live here and have interest in America, you are right — and justified in your offense. Welcome to how it feels to be accused of having an obsessive, unhealty "fetish" toward Asia just because you date an Asian woman, eat sushi, learn an Asian language, or, as BukakiKid claims, amazingly, even if you shop at an Asian market. Computer1200 (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
If this topic is even necessary at all, could it be a sub-category of something broader, like Sexual preference, Racial sex preferences, or something along those lines? I realize that it is being described here as an "obsession", but that information could still be mentioned. An article like this seems to assume that there is something odd about liking Asian women as opposed to liking: Asian men or black/Hispanic/etc. people of either gender. The above comments about knowing how to use chopsticks as an indicator of Asian fetish are just ridiculous.
This article leaves nothing to compare it to. It also doesn't address the thought that perhaps "Yellow fever" is not actually any more significant than any other racial preference/obsession. I've also seen studies that claim to link "Asian fetish" to pedophilia. I guess that would belong here, if I could find it. Puchiwonga (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
With respect, Computer1200's comment above is full of the "unstudied arguments" he finds in BukakiKid's comment. It is full of the kind of OR that has made this article such a problem, and in attacking a straw man, makes it clear that Computer1200 has a particular POV to push here. Again, are there sources available which support any of that? --hippo43 (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Again: the burden of proof is on hippo43, and her friend "BukakiKid," to prove that some sort of demented "fetish" really exists. This is how it works: you make dubious claims about an "asian fetish" that are inflammatory, sensationalistic, racist, utterly dehumanizing, creepy and gross, then the burden of proof is on the claimant to show with very credible sources that said "fetish" exists in the way that you claim it exists. And please note: this is decidedly not the same thing as listing off ways that I talk about "asian fetish" with my friends. However, hippo43 should free to list off all the "unstudied arguments" in my comment. I would be glad to respond. Computer1200 (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Computer, did you actually read the comments here before replying? --hippo43 (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
With respect, I do recommend that Hippo43 stay focused on laying down logical arguments for the dubious claims she continually tries to enforce, rather than question my ability to read comments, which is ad hominem attack [7] and dangerously close to personal attack [8] that does not directly address the criticisms she is making. My comments have continually been germane. Thank you. Computer1200 (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
With respect, Hippo43 is a he, not a she. I have not tried to enforce anything, or made any dubious claims. I made no personal attack - my point is just that you have constructed an elaborate straw man, and seem to have read an awful lot into BukakiKid's (admittedly bizarre) comments. There was no claim in this discussion that anyone, least of all you, has 'some sort of demented "fetish"' and no one demonized 'non-Asians for being interested in Asian things as having some clinical, demented "fetish"'. You seem to be aggressively defending yourself against a non-existent attack. Do you have any constructive suggestions for how to fix the article? --hippo43 (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Your position on the study is already disputed. reverting and insisting on discussion amounts to ownership and frankly looks combative given that there is an open RFC, you already reverted it 3 times a few days ago, and you know it's disputed. If you want to look for constructive suggestions, doing that isn't one of them. If you want to make non-trivial changes to the article, I'd suggest creating a proposal like I did above and am going to do below.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 2

I think we need to come to a consensus on the definition. To that end I'm going to list a couple of things and people can weigh in on whether or not they agree or disagree with the assessments, and it would help if people would provide sources that may already be in the article or not in the article for each position. I don't think there are sources for all of these, I'm just putting in various combinations so people can either support or disagree with any of the various definitions. If you feel I've left out a definition feel free to append it to either list.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is well-intentioned, and might prove useful, but without specifically referring to the relevant sources, it is utterly meaningless. Which sources are you talking about in your comments below? --hippo43 (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Sources that exist in the article or that have been discussed here or any that people want to bring to the discussion. I wrote this quickly before I had to go out, so I didn't have time to pull them from the article. But in terms of the asian fetish one, being used non-pejoratively, I've brought those up a couple times. Specifically in reference to an architect and clint eastwood making 2 films with a japanese theme.--Crossmr (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Asian Fetish

  • Some reliable sources specifically define "Asian Fetish" as an obsession (used pejoratively) with all things Asian (including women)
Suppport I believe at least a couple reliable sources explicitly define this as such.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Some reliable sources specifically define "Asian Fetish" as a strong interest (used positively or neutrally) with all things Asian (possibly including women)
  • Some reliable sources specifically use "Asian Fetish" in a context that means obsession (used pejoratively) with all things Asian (including or specifically women)
support I believe several reliable sources use the term as such without specifically defining it (like the college papers)--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Some reliable sources specifically use "Asian Fetish" in a context that means interest (used positively or neutrally) with all things Asian (possibly including women)
support At least a couple sources I've found use the term in a non-pejorative sense to indicate what seems to be to be an interest and not an obsession, and which doesn't include a focus on women.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Asiaphile (asiaphilia)

  • Some reliable sources specifically define "Asiaphile" as an obsession (used pejoratively) with all things Asian (including women)
  • Some reliable sources specifically define "Asiaphile" as a strong interest (used positively or neutrally) with all things Asian (possibly including women)
  • Some reliable sources specifically use "Asiaphile" in a context that means obsession (used pejoratively) with all things Asian (including or specifically women)
oppose I haven't come across any sources that seem to use this negatively. If anyone has some, feel free to provide them--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Some reliable sources specifically use "Asiaphile" in a context that means interest (used positively or neutrally) with all things Asian (possibly including women)
support all of the reliable sources I've come across that use this term seem to use it as a neutral or positive term to indicate a general interest in all things asian.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


My comment got lost in the above discussion, so I'll paste the relevent stuff here:

If this topic is even necessary at all, could it be a sub-category of something broader, like Sexual preference (currently a redirect to a page that is not completely relevant), Racial sex preferences, or something along those lines? I realize that it is being described here as an "obsession", but that information could still be mentioned. An article like this seems to assume that there is something odd about liking Asian women as opposed to liking: Asian men or black/Hispanic/etc. If you follow the link to Jungle fever and read in the disambiguation, it links to Miscegenation (with no mention of this "phenomena" in the article that I could find).

Does Jungle Fever deserve an article? If so, wouldn't it just be better to have a broader category where these could be sub-categories?

Look at Queen (gay slang). It has all of these. A Rice Queen is a gay male with an Asian fetish. Then see Bean Queen, Potato Queen, etc. I think it makes sense for them to be together, because there isn't that much to say about any of them individually. Puchiwonga (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Columbia study

I've pared this down again. I realise that it is disputed by a couple of editors, but there has never been a genuinely stable version as far as I can tell, so there has been no consensus established for how much of it should be included. Recent changes in content and article size affect how much weight this should be given. I have never suggested that I own this article, or any part of it, but Computer1200 and Crossmr's tenacity in resisting changes suggests that they might think they do.

There was far too much weight given to this study - nearly half the word count of the article at one point! The study is not directly related to the subject of the article - after recent changes, dating preferences are only one aspect of the article's content, and this study is not even specifically about Asian people.

It was being used to refute a straw man, a position which may have been relevant in past arguments here, but is not currently. There is no suggestion in the current text that among white Western men in general there is a widespread obsession with Asian women, so a weighty section based on a barely-related study being used to rebut that view is ridiculous. It would be good to get views from a number of editors on this. --hippo43 (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

using the term "yellow fever," a pun on the disease of the same name, discusses white men with a "fetish" for Asian women. seems like this is still in the article. Once we can get a consensus on where we are going with this article that idea is put forth in many reliable sources, and it will probably just have to be restored to full again.--Crossmr (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Hippo43, you have an interesting concept about how to form consensus. You do what you want to the article, then tell us what you did. That is not getting consensus. Indeed, you've pared it down without consensus — again. In anycase, there is no "straw man." To define frequency of said "fetish" that the slang form implies is absolutely critical and central. This in relation to the slang term's implication of a kind of bizarre dementia that is characteristic of any relationship between a non-Asian man and an Asian female. If you have any doubt that some believe that this "fetish" is very, very widespread, just look at the creepy things that BukakiKid is insisting: we all have a bizarre asian fetish (and his characterization of people with said fetish is bizarre as you have already admitted), he is sure of it, if we go shop at an asian market, wear asian symbols, or even use chopsticks. YOU CANNOT GET ANY MORE WIDESPREAD THAN THAT. However: the Columbia study shows empirical proof that white men do not have any special, widespread attraction to asian women, therefore completely disproving the contention that any relationship between a white man and an asian women is somehow unhealthy in any way. Please, if you revert again, I am recommending that you be blocked. It also seems that you have a history of being blocked for reckless reverts and edits on other articles (cf: Drew Barrymore). Please don't make this the next one. Having said that, I am not trying to fight here. I think some of your work on this article has been good. But I do think we will have to respectfully agree to disagree on the Columbia Study.Computer1200 (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the name of the professor and the business of "as quoted by" as inappropriate. Abductive (reasoning) 07:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Nothing inappropriate about it. Feel free to cite a policy that says otherwise though.--Crossmr (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Rather than cite it here for discussion I noticed you instead chose to revert the article. Undue has absolutely nothing to do with naming the author of a study in an article. Notability has nothing to do with it either. Notability has a bearing on the creation of a new article on fishman, but that isn't what is going on here.--Crossmr (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
With Abductive refusing to discuss his aggressive editing without discussion, my vote on the Columbia study is that the original content be preserved. To many the Columbia study is controversial, and therefore it requires thorough and credible citations, including authorship and uni's involved. Positing the idea that including thorough documentation of a source is somehow against Wikipedia rules, or a "general consensus" implies a completely different agenda, and one that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia that very heavily emphasizes clean, strong links between ideas in the content and the sources that back up that content. One must ask the question: when is it in anyone's best interest to hide and conceal sources? Answer: when the sources guard the credibility of an argument that someone does not like.
I also would point out that Abductive's arguments (sudden, aggressive, and contentious) about citations not only do not make sense, but also they do not follow Wikipedia regs. Wikipedia has very clear guidelines about citations likely to be challenged here: Wikipedia:Verifiability. With reference to what one should include in a citation for something controversial, it states the following: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." And also: "Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work should be cited and attributed to their authors in the text." Please note clearly: these guidelines go much further than simply allowing the kind of inline citations that are in the section, they require those kinds of inline citations. I am re-inserting the original content. Please do not change without discussion here. Computer1200 (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Fisman et al study

Crossmr, can you clarify what you meant in your edit summary "you're removing key findings of the study"? I don't think I removed any findings of the study - could you explain which findings specifically? You seem determined to avoid any edits to this section - the edits I made did not remove anything substantive, added accuracy and improved the writing.

Is there any good reason to refer to where the study has been discussed (" As quoted on") unless to add unnecessary weight to this section?

Is there a good reason to avoid using the study's title in the section heading? Using the study's actual title here is obviously preferable - using "Columbia University study" as the title is less accurate, implies that the study was on the subject of this article specifically, and serves as a peacock term. The study was carried out by four scientists, not Columbia University. In fact, only two of the four authors were from Columbia, and the study was published by the Review of Economic Studies, not a Columbia publication. The version you restored uses the word "Columbia" five times in this section - this is ridiculous. Listing all four authors is also unnecessary - the information is all there in the reference.

Is there a good reason to include the phrase "more than 400 daters", and remove the specific number of subjects, other than to serve as a peacock term? Is there a good reason to include the phrase "thousands of decisions" rather than giving a more accurate description of the study unless the intent is to mislead? In reality the study was on a speed dating experiment designed purely for the study. It was not a study of real-world dating behaviour, and it studied only around 130 white men, and around 40 asian women from a very narrow population sample. To present it here as somehow authoritative is poor scholarship, misleading and not encyclopedic. --hippo43 (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not have time to look at this in depth right now, but a couple things that need to be pointed out right away are: 1) the study was in fact done by three (3) Columbia University professors. That is what you do when you refer to studies that are done at prestigious universitites, you say "the Yale study" or "a study done at Princeton," or wherever. It is not only appropriate to do that, it is critical in order to guard the credibility of the findings. 2) To that end, you also include other media in which the study has appeared, which is less important, but nevertheless does indeed build further credibility. I'm reverting the title now, and we can take up the rest of it later. Computer1200 (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you take the time to get into it before high-handedly reverting without reading the source properly. 2 of the 4 authors were from Columbia, the other 2 from Chicago and Stanford. Please don't patronise me - your shoehorning the word 'Columbia' into the section as often as possible (4 times in your most recent version) is both bad writing and evidence of your desire to push your POV. Even the author, writing in the Slate article, does not refer to it as a Columbia University study, perhaps because it was not published by a publication of Columbia University. It is not for us to editorialise here about the credibility of the findings - we present the facts and let readers draw their own conclusions about the quality of sources. If there is a policy which supports your view on mentioning where the study has been discussed, could you please point it out? Reverted. --hippo43 (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm High-handed and patronizing and I'm pushing POV? Wow. If I remember correctly, just yesterday it was YOU who, all of the sudden, came in and made changes to a section that has been up for years. YOU are the one on whom the burden of proof lies. YOU are the one who must make a case to do everything that you did. It is not the responsibility of others to come in and make a case for keeping what you seem determined to change with utterly no consensus, and then get mad when it is reverted. Again, this is a pattern for which you have been busted for before.
In anycase, I don't think you make your case well. I am not in any way "editorializing findings" or "shoehorning" the Columbia name into the article. It is utterly common and accepted practice to state the name of the lead researcher's institution when referring to studies. And Fisman — a Columbia prof — was the lead (from the article: "And so for a couple of years at a local bar just off the Columbia campus, I ran a speed-dating experiment with two psychologists, Sheena Iyengar and Itamar Simonson, and fellow economist Emir Kamenica." IE: he was the lead researcher.) Further, I contend that to speak about Columbia U. three or four times in the context of that section is in no way "ridiculous." However: you are right about something. I do agree that to mention only Columbia would be remiss. I have included the other professors and the names of their institutions. Again, this is all very important to make the data credible, and to not have this data would of course immediately raise concerns about the source of this data. And the number 400? That is important in terms of the sample, and the integrity of the research methods. Finally, it is only your opinion that the writing is "bad."
If you consider this patronizing, then I'm not sure what to tell you. That is the nature of a rebuttal. The person dragging red-herrings around is you. If you revert again, without getting consensus, I will take the necessary steps to have you blocked. It is not OK to sweep into a section after it being up for so long, snipe the contents without getting any consensus or initiating any discussion, and then get upset when it is reverted. If you feel the need to change the content, then you must start a discussion strand FIRST, not after you have made a whole host of changes. Haven't we been through this before? Actually, I am just amazed at how you keep doing this and then attack people (cf. I'm heavy-handed, POV, and patronizing) who try to hold you to Wikipedia protocol.Computer1200 (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I added this above, and I will add it here also as it is relevant:
With Abductive refusing to discuss his aggressive editing without discussion, my vote on the Columbia study is that the original content be preserved. To many the Columbia study is controversial, and therefore it requires thorough and credible citations, including authorship and uni's involved. Positing the idea that including thorough documentation of a source is somehow against Wikipedia rules, or a "general consensus" implies a completely different agenda, and one that goes against the spirit of Wikipedia that very heavily emphasizes clean, strong links between ideas in the content and the sources that back up that content. One must ask the question: when is it in anyone's best interest to hide and conceal sources? Answer: when the sources guard the credibility of an argument that someone does not like.
I also would point out that Abductive's arguments (sudden, aggressive, and contentious) about citations not only do not make sense, but also they do not follow Wikipedia regs. Wikipedia has very clear guidelines about citations likely to be challenged here: Wikipedia:Verifiability. With reference to what one should include in a citation for something controversial, it states the following: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." And also: "Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work should be cited and attributed to their authors in the text." Please note clearly: these guidelines go much further than simply allowing the kind of inline citations that are in the section, they require those kinds of inline citations. I am re-inserting the original content. Please do not change without discussion here. Computer1200 (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a collection of straw men. Who says the Fisman study is "controversial"? (To readers, rather than editors in this dicsussion) If it is a controversial viewpoint in the real world, please reference that fact in the appropriate way. There is no need to include more info in the body of the article to talk up the credibility of the source. You are obviously able to quote from WP:V. but seem unable or unwilling to understand it. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" is straightforward - an inline citation is required, not a detailed explanation of the source, author, university, author's dog etc. "...Cited and attributed to their authors in the text" likewise does not mean we have to write treatise on the source, it means we have to cite the source (with an inline citation, as already stated) and attribute the opinion to the author - not to the study, the university or anything else. That means we have to make it clear that statement X is just the opinion of author Y, it does not mean we have to explain anything further about author Y or the work. If that author has a wikipedia article about him, we would link to it. If not, we would certainly not need to provide any detail about him here.
Moreover, nobody has suggested hiding or concealing the authors of the source - they are right there in the refs. This is not about removing information from the article, or the "credibility of an argument that someone does not like". It is about presenting the information with the appropriate weight; that is, appropriate for this article.
On the other hand, your insistence on having so much information is clearly an attempt to enhance the impact of mentioning this study. How much credence readers should give to a source is a judgment that it is not ours as editors to make; it is not our job to talk sources up, or to talk them down - let the source speak for itself. --hippo43 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Nope, sorry. Not a collection of straw men; Nor am I misreading WP:V in any way. You are doing some serious, backbreaking semantical gymnastics here Hippo43. The very fact that you are absolutely bent to hide sources and information that backs up an important section that has been up for years, is proof that it is in fact controversial to you -- otherwise you wouldn't be so unbelievably obsessed about taking the content out.
But to say this source is not controversial is simply not true. Throughout the history of this article there have been different people who have wanted to take it down constantly, even as it speaks very directly to the frequency of the said "fetish." The main one besides you was TKguy. But it is not OK to freely remove and snipe content that has been up for years, and then make a note of it here in the discussion. Actually, that's not OK with any article, unless it is truly minor. I think the content that is up is fair. Others feel that way, also. And I see now that you have gone so far as to pare it down to a couple sentences. That does not go well to repair your reputation as an edit-warrior, I'm afraid to say. But I must say, it is so blaringly odd and telling that you are so determined to alter the very content related to the Columbia Study. Computer1200 (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Scholarly sources

Does anybody have access to this study? Or this one? Abductive (reasoning) 02:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Your second link doesn't work, something to do with a cookie issue.--Crossmr (talk) 02:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight on Fisman study

There are several problems with the weight proposed by Crossmr and Computer1200 for this source. The policy (WP:UNDUE, part of WP:NPOV) states "How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources." How much coverage has this one study been given in reliable sources? Close to nil.

More specifically it states: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." In this example, each of these three bold items is relevant/

Quantity of text: The most recent version by Computer1200 contains 250 words in this section. The rest of the article is only around 211 words. To devote more than half of the article to a single source which does not mention the subject, or directly address it, would be laiughable if it were not a serious breach of this policy. This clearly violates the neutrality policy and, wikipedia rules aside, is obviously dreadful scholarship. The current version, edited by me tonight, contains 125 words, or 37% of the article, which is still ludicrously high.

Depth of detail: Very little is required, as explained in the section above, in line with citation policy - there is no real-world controversy relating to this study reflected in reliable sources which might justify more detailed discussion.

Prominence of placement: Does it deserve its own section? Of course not. No other source in the article is given its own section, or as detailed coverage as this one. In particular, this source does not address directly the subject of the article, and does not even mention "Asian fetish", "Asiaphilia", "yellow fever" or any similar term. I can't find a single reliable source which mentions this study in conjunction with any of those terms. How often is a single source which does not mention the article's subject given its own section in wikipedia? Virtually never, and with good reason.

WP:UNDUE does not only refer to different points of view, but states "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject". This is simply not a crucial source to the understanding of the article's subject. Given that it does not sepcifically address the article's subject, it needs to be reduced to a level of prominence no greater than any other single source. --hippo43 (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree, of course. Perhaps enough time has passed to for another careful search of the scientific literature to find new articles? Abductive (reasoning) 23:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. --hippo43 (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Naming the author of a study and their school isn't undue weight. This was already proposed, two editors disagreed, there was no consensus for the change. Your misinterpretation of WP:V aside, the section is well written as is. It only seems prominent because the rest of the article has been paired down. Expand the rest of it and it won't seem so prominent. It is 250 words which is not an excessive amount for describing a study and its results. If you want to make it shorter, consider removing the quote. The quote shouldn't be the main focus of the section and convey all the information. That should be conveyed in our own words. You also currently have no consensus to reduce the section. You were bold, it was reverted, there is no clear consensus try discussing it instead of jamming your version in or have you learned nothing from being blocked for edit warring?--Crossmr (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes have been made to the article and explained in great detail with specific reference to policy. Simply repeating "there's no consensus for that" is not discussion. So your answer is "insert more stuff so it won't look so bad"?? The reason the rest of the article was pared down was that it was so poor - the weight that was removed was done so with good reason. WP:UNDUE explicitly addresses proportion, not absolute weight. You have offered no justification for why this source should receive such a proportion of the article's content. If the article were 2500 words, this one tenuously relevant source would still account for 10% of it! What fraction of the article would be appropriate to devote to this one source? 0.1%? AFAICT, there is no basis in policy for increasing the rest of an article to make one part seem less disproportionate.
"Naming the author of a study isn't undue weight" I agree, see my comment in the section above and in my recent edit to the section. "Naming their school"?? No basis in policy - WP:V doesn't require it, and it serves as a peacock term here. I also agree with your view of the quote.
"250 words which is not an excessive amount for describing a study and its results" says who? Which policy? --hippo43 (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and I disagree with your interpretation of policy. You were bold, you were reverted, we should carry on the discussion, but you can't help but revert again can you? There is not consensus for that is try and get you to realize that edit warring over it won't get your version kept. I know you have a little trouble with that but when there is something controversial on an article simply explaining yourself isn't enough. You need to gain consensus for your changes and you don't have it. Regardless of how right you think you are. Even if we are to shorten this section, you've gone about it all the wrong way. So instead of trying to jam something in there why don't you revert yourself and demonstrate that you're actually interested in gaining consensus and improving the article? Leaving something so short with a quote is a bad section. Because you've not just removed information about their schools you've removed information on how and where the study was carried out. If you want to make the section shorter, remove the quote and instead write prose describing who, what, where, when, how. Right now all you have is who (and that isn't complete) and the result. You've taken it from a useful section to one that isn't. Undue doesn't state that you should remove so much information from a section as to make it uninformative.--Crossmr (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
So your answer is to repeat yourself again, but you've added "and I disagree with your interpretation of policy"? Maybe "discussion" means something different where you are. Feel free to address the specific points of WP:UNDUE. I've paraphrased the quote, as you rightly suggested. The information on the study's how/what/where & the rest of the who is still there, but it's in the footnotes, where it belongs per WP:V. (The when is in the text) None of the other sources mentioned in the article (the ones which actually deal with the subject) are treated in as much detail. --hippo43 (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
And I also completely disagree with Hipp43's interpretation of the policies. It's amazingly bent and twisted. There has been obvious and protracted controversy about this section for years (including Hippo43's vendetta right now!) and that warrants extra careful and heavy use of inline citations by WP:V. Again, the section needs to remain as it has been.Computer1200 (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree but only until a consensus is reached for its change. If hippo43 wants to propose a new section here, he can do so and we can give our opinions and apply it to the article once.--Crossmr (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that shows there is no consensus for your change which is why you shouldn't be edit warring over it. There is nothing in Undue which says a section has to be reduced beyond usefulness, or exactly what percentage of the article it can take. You've given your opinion on quantity of text. You've cited policy and tainted it with your opinion. The policy doesn't say "a section can't be more than 30% of the article". You're confusing your opinion with policy. The policy says consider these things. You want to consider them it can be done, but your need to get consensus for your interpretation if you want to apply it to the article and you don't have it. The who/what/where/when/how should be part of the description of the study. It isn't remotely undue weight and provides context for readers to understand the result and where it came from as it relates to this subject. In terms of directly addressing the subject the term "Asian fetish" is only one of many terms and ideas used to describe the same thing. A racial preference in dating is perfectly in line with that since Asian Fetish and yellow fever are often used to mean that very thing.--Crossmr (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP:UNDUE#Characterizing opinions of people's work. Abductive (reasoning) 06:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Read it. Has zero to do with this situation, but keep scrambling to find something. It is talking about aesthetic opinion. This is just further evidence that you are trying to push your own personal point of view and throwing out broken argument after broken argument while you desparately (and in vain) seek something to support you. You've had plenty of time to pony up a proper citation for the consensus you claim and haven't.--Crossmr (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, each of my arguments is consistent with the other. And only you think they are broken. To tell the truth, I have not looked for a proper "citation" for the consensus I claim, because I know you would only Wikilawyer it. The fact remains; nobody is coming to your aid, even though AN/I is on 4489 watchlists. Savvy? And what would you do if somebody else came along and agreed with me and Hippo43? Abductive (reasoning) 06:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
You haven't looked for it because it doesn't exist. If you need to look for it you don't know what it is and can't prove your position which is further evidence you're just making this up as you go along to create a WP:BATTLEGROUND. The only thing consistent about your argument is that you are making it up. If you are going to claim consensus, prove it. Otherwise you're done. You have no point and no position and you've basically admitted that you're edit warring with consensus which was what I knew all along.--Crossmr (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
What would you do if I found an explicit statement that using researchers' names inline is not preferred? And I am not edit warring; if I was doing or saying anything wrong, why aren't any admins doing anything, especially since I was so recently blocked? Doesn't that make you wonder? Abductive (reasoning) 07:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you provide one and we'll see. You're stalling which means you have nothing to support you.--Crossmr (talk) 07:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I expect somebody else will come along and disabuse you of your notion of consensus. Also, you should carefully read abductive reasoning. Abductive (reasoning) 08:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
So in other words, blowing smoke and you have no evidence to support your position. You are expecting something. Have anything to do with your previous sock?--Crossmr (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Previous account. I'd have to be a pretty dumb sockpuppeteer to create an account that is so obviously not my first, then start arguing, then allude to others proffering their opinions, all in order to prevail here. Nope, I'm hoping that people will see it my way eventually. Abductive (reasoning) 15:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hippo43's version (19 Apr 2010)

A 2007 study by the economist Ray Fisman on dating preferences among a group of 412 graduate students did not find evidence of "the stereotype of a white male preference for East Asian women".[1] The study found that there was a significantly higher pairing of white men with East Asian women simply because East Asian women discriminate racially against black and hispanic men.[2]

  1. ^ An Economist Goes to a Bar, and Solves the Mystery of Dating Ray Fisman, Wednesday, November 7, 2007 -
  2. ^ Fisman, R., Iyengar, S., Kamenica, E. & Simonson, I. Racial Preferences in Dating, Review of Economic Studies 2007. [1] The study was based on speed-dating experiments devised by the authors, conducted over two years, and as a result analyzed "thousands of decisions made by more than 400 daters from Columbia University's various graduate and professional schools."
  • comment personally I support removing the quote and replacing it with prose describing the situation, but I don't support moving the fact that it was 2 year study and the amount of data collected to the footnote. I think it is relevant to the reader to clearly put the study in context in the text. Fisman was a co-author as noted before and I think we need to mention the other co-authors. According to Google scholarly articles, it was cited by 64 sources.
  • … in Mate Selection: Evidence from a Speed Dating … - Fisman - Cited by 64 Racial preferences in dating - Fisman - Cited by 36" In fact a hundred citations. [9]. So there seems to be plenty of interest in this study.--Crossmr (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • comment on date You've also got a problem with the date in the version you've written. Per the actual study itself (see the second link in the google link I put above) First version received August 2004; final version accepted May 2007 (Eds.). It seems this study was probably started in 2002, not 2007. if it was a 2 year study that was first submitted in 2004.--Crossmr (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, at least we are finally putting up a section to discuss this properly. I have some things I see as very important in the section: 1) I think the information in the quotation is extremely important, all of it. It doesn't need to be in pull-quote form as it stands right now, however. But I think it should be represented clearly and exactly in the content of the section. 2) I think it is very important to at least make it clear that the study was conducted at Columbia by two Columbia profs and two other professors. 3) finally, IMO it is important to include the other places that it was published.
Here's is my pared-down suggestion below, 137 words::
..Columbia Study on dating preferences..
In 2007 economist Ray Fisman, in a two year study he co-authored on dating preferences among Columbia University students, did not find evidence of a general preference among white men for Asian women. Fisman published an article that appeared in The Washington Post, The Review of Economic Studies, and Slate, stating, "We found no evidence of the stereotype of a white male preference for East Asian women. However, we also found that East Asian women did not discriminate against white men (only against black and Hispanic men). As a result, the white man-Asian woman pairing was the most common form of interracial dating—but because of the women's neutrality, not the men's pronounced preference. Men don't seem to discriminate based on race when it comes to dating. A woman's race had no effect on the men's choices."
In the end, I think the quoted material is the most important.Computer1200 (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
You have increased the number of times this non-notable person is mentioned in this section. And the lengthy quote is quite likely against some policy or another, I'm sure. Abductive (reasoning) 05:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
And you've failed to actually demonstrate why that is a problem. Someone being non-notable doesn't preclude them from being mentioned in an article. Plenty of people who aren't notable on their own are mentioned in articles all over wikipedia, and if you're sure, feel free to cite a policy. We'll wait. And frankly there could be a case made for his notability. It would have to be investigated further but he turns up 74 google news hits and seems to be often cited as an expert [10]. He shows up in google books 84 times [11], and 227 times in Scholar [12]. Now that you've raised the issue, I may have to look into whether or not there is enough notability here to justify an article. It is beginning to look like there is.--Crossmr (talk) 06:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I could just as easily say that you have failed to understand that WP:UNDUE requires that this guy not be given as much "play" in the text of the article. Look at similar articles; rarely are researchers without an article given so much credit and extensive quotes. The reason is because it is a sort of stealth spam; it is promoting an individual in an article that has nothing to do with that individual. I have seen (and man, is it pathetic) junior professors post their mention in a Wikipedia article on their doors. Abductive (reasoning) 18:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, the inclusion of names with relation to studies that are controversial is not only allowed, but required. However, if you are so adament about removing all names from the section, I think we could compromise by making sure to emphasize Columbia U., and leave the Fisman name in the citation below? For me, the most important content is the exact information in the quote, plus the Columbia name for credibility. Ultimately, it would be best to include the other uni's in the section for more credibility. Computer1200 (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand Undue just fine, you seem to still have trouble grasping WP:BRD. We are in the middle of seeking consensus on this section and you can't help but go out there and keep trying to change it without consensus. You're trying to make up a new reason each time because you don't really know why you don't want his name there, but it simply cannot stand. It's undue, its vanity, its stealth spam, its about some junior professor who needs attention. Reporting who did some research, and what university they did the research under isn't a violation of any policy out there. As I've just pointed out Fisman is likely notable and after checking the notability requirements for professors given the times he and his studies have been cited in news paper articles, he probably is notable. Not that that even has the slightest bearing on whether or not he should be mentioned by name in the article. Because of the two additional studies found below, and the date issue, we need to propose a new version to get consensus on. Before proposing that though perhaps we could all go take a look and do some googling and see if there are any more studies or statistics related to racial preference in dating so we can include a full picture.
In the end, his name should only appear in the ref. That is how Wikipedia acknowledges people. Abductive (reasoning) 02:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
No, it doesn't and you've failed to cite any policy or guideline which states as much.--Crossmr (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes I have, WP:UNDUE, and in another way WP:PSTS. Given that there are other studies, isn't it strange that Fisman's is given such prominence? Let me ask you this: Why do you care whether he is mentioned inline or in the ref? Abductive (reasoning) 02:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
because it's relevent to the readers understanding. Why do you care so much? Psts has nothing to do with it. This isn't a primary source on Asian fetish and it is instead a published study. A heavily cited published study by a notable individual-Crossmr (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
And as further reading, have a look at the bottom of the study published here: [13], perhaps you'd like to read our article on the organization that edited and published that study Quarterly Journal of Economics. It was also published by Review of Economic Studies.[14]--Crossmr (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • contrasting opinions as I was searching for info on Fisman, I noticed there are actually other studies that have been done. [15] this was done in 2004-2005 on an online personals site. Okcupid released their own statistics stating whether or not a bias exists [16]. This section might be better changed to something to show the various studies and statistics that have been released on this.--Crossmr (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, the more studies the better. The OkCupid study used much more data than any other, but I wonder how much weight it should be given. Perhaps some sort of caveat about how it isn't from the scientific literature? Abductive (reasoning) 17:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • That is why we mention who did the study and how they were done. Only if we had something like 10 or more studies all being written about would we really lessen the detail given to each one. But if these 3 are all we can find mentioning who did them and how they were done is perfectly acceptable.--Crossmr (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Mentioned in the refs, yes. Mentioned in the text, no. Show me another article in which a non-notable researcher gets that much attention. Abductive (reasoning) 02:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Since you asked so nicely, Child beauty pageant, Stretching, Simulation heuristic, Negative campaigning, Environment and intelligence, etc. That's off the first page of a google search which returns over 500 results [17]. "conducted by" returns over 2000 results [18]. You've been asked to refrain from editing against consensus. You've been blocked for it once already. Please stop and continue the discussion. And I've already pointed out that Fisman meets our requirements for notability due to his being cited as an expert in many news articles and books.--Crossmr (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course Fisman can be referenced in the article, but he cannot be given such ridiculous prominence in the text. Have you considered that there are two people saying this? Now, I am going to look into some additional sources to add to the article. Please join with me in looking for sources. Abductive (reasoning) 02:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I was not blocked for my views, which are correct, and I am editing within consensus. Given that there are 3 million articles on Wikipedia, 2000 that say "study conducted by" proves my point; the consensus is not to include such language. Abductive (reasoning) 02:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • By the way, the Stretching article has been tagged since 2008 for poor citation style, which further demonstrates that citing people inline is improper. Abductive (reasoning) 02:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The Simulation heuristic is poorly written and I have so tagged it. These examples aren't looking too hot. Abductive (reasoning) 02:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

you have given no evidence to show you are correct. Have you forgotten there are only 2 of you who agree with that? You asked for other articles and they were provided. I very quickly found 2500 articles with 2 search strings and the abscence of those strings in other articles isn't proof the style isn't used. Plenty of articles don't cite studied at all. You were blocked for repeatedly trying to push your version without consensus which is exactly what you are doing again now. You have been asked to discuss this since you started. Every argument you have made has either been a bizarre interpretation of policy or patently false like the fact that fisman was nn or that you have some kind of consensus you refuse to cite. If you have a policy or guideline that states researchers can't be named in articles pleas cite it. we have all been waiting for it. Your claim was no other articles contained the names of nn researchers. I just found a ton. Any other patently false claims you want to make or can we move on? An article being tagged fir citation style has nothing to do with someones name in an article-Crossmr (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  • You have just ably demonstrated that less than 0.1% of Wikipedia articles use such language. Abductive (reasoning) 03:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • and you still haven't demonstrated that there is any consensus not to use it. Your claim was none used it, I just showed you plenty which proves your claim false. Point us to a discussion where the community agreed that researchers name shouldn't be used in text. You claim consensus. Either prove it or stop with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.--Crossmr (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Not as odd or obsessed as only editing 15 articles in your career here on Wikipedia, with the vast majority of your edits to this article and Mail-order bride. I have created 24 articles with this account alone. But that is not important. As a more experienced editor, I should make every effort to educate newbies. One question you should ask yourself; why does Hippo43 agree with him? Abductive (reasoning) 06:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course your pattern here is odd and obsessed. And as Crossmr is diligently pointing out on an hourly basis, you arguments make utterly no sense. As far as Hippo43 you are exactly the same in that you pound away with semantical gymnastics that do not represent reason, but only a way to slip around your responsibility to produce logical rebuttals. Sorry, but to say that I am using WP:V wrong is just plain silly - and it makes you look silly. Further, it betrays a obsession and determination to remove Fisman's name, which leads to one of two things: you either do not know what you are doing, or you don't like Ray FIsman. Otherwise, your arguments would not be so uninformed and silly. Further, my edits on other articles have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that you are using WP regs in seriously nonsensical ways that don't make sense. IN the end, it does nothing for your reputation. Everyone can see you are chasing at the wind here. You might keep that in mind. Thanks. Computer1200 (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
And what other accounts have you used to create edits? Since you've brought it up as some apparent badge of experience and knowledge, or should we believe someone who going to try and hide their previous accounts that they used for 2.5 years. Or someone who is a proven sock puppeteer? What you might ask yourself is why you find it so hard to have a consensus discussion without edit warring over topics or say citing the actual policies you claim support you. Those are the really important questions. We might also ask what you're doing removing notable researchers from articles with false claims they're not notable. Those are also important questions.--Crossmr (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
These questions are important only to you. And as I said, I am not removing anybody from articles, just confining them to the refs where they belong. Abductive (reasoning) 06:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes I've just read your latest "argument" which you've cited something completely irrelevant which you clearly don't understand as some defense for your combative pointy edits. You still haven't shown a single policy or guideline which says researchers should be confined to the references. The section you cited is about general opinions on artistic and creative works. What does that have to do with whether or not a researcher is mentioned in conjunction with a study?--Crossmr (talk) 06:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:CREATIVE. Abductive (reasoning) 07:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow.. you've finally gone completely off the reservation. The section you cited is about articles on creative works and how to handle critics opinions of them. This article is not on creative works. The new section you've cited is about notability on creative people. Which links to WP:PROF which we've already discussed down below that you can't read. These are not even remotely related. Are you basically just rolling dice at this point and picking different wikilinks to use?--Crossmr (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
No, it all hangs together. WP:UNDUE#Characterizing opinions of people's work clearly says that gushing about somebody work is not encyclopedic. You say that it applies only to creative professionals, and I show you a sub-guideline (WP:CREATIVE) which considers "Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals" together. So the conclusion is that giving undue weight, such as emphasizing Fisman when it is his co-authors who have Wikipedia articles, giving him extensive quotes, describing his appearances in the media and so forth is inappropriate. Also, and unaddressed by you, is Hippo43s's claim that this study of interracial dating doesn't say anything about sexually fetishizing Asians. Abductive (reasoning) 07:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Wow you are completely lost. Characterizing opinions of people's work is talking about critical reception on creative subjects. It is pretty clear. We're talking about artists, songs, things like that. I never said it applied only to creative professionals. Where did I say that? Read the very first sentence from the section A special case is the expression of aesthetic opinions.. It is talking about opinions given by critics and the like. I don't think I have ever seen a more blatant misunderstanding of wikipedia policy. You'd almost have to wonder if its intentional. There is no connection between it and WP:CREATIVE not even a little bit. One is a notability guideline the other is a policy on how much and what kind of weight to give a professional critics opinion. Neither of which have anything to do with including a researchers name in an article along with their study. As I've already pointed out above, "Asian fetish" isn't a recognized psychological fetish. We've discussed that before. It is colloquial term that is used to describe an obsession or stronger than usual interest in things asian (including dating partners). I've demonstrated above where Asian fetish was used to refer to a filmmakers subject matter and an architects choice.--Crossmr (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
No, WP:UNDUE is much broader than you think. WP:CREATIVE dovetails nicely. Your constant ad hominem attacks are tiresome. You accuse me of various policy violations in front of the biggest audience of admins you can find, which if you were right would result in me being admonished or blocked by the admins, and yet that hasn't happened. Therefore I am forced to conclude that you do not understand policy, including the ones I have linked to repeatedly. I hope you don't mind if I continue to edit your article. Abductive (reasoning) 08:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
So tell me which part of an aesthetic opinion is being covered by a study? I'll wait while you dance around that one. Yes, I do mind. We are in the middle of a consensus discussion. I know you aren't used to having to do that, but why don't you try it this once. Creative talks about notability for creating articles on various individuals. What article is trying to be created by including researchers names with their studies in article space?--Crossmr (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
This gets more entertaining all the time. First: who around here is "gushing out someone's work?" The study is presented in a very straightforward way. So...Crossmr doesn't understand policy... Huh? It is really interesting to watch you posit arguments that make utterly no sense and then accuse others of the same. And it is not Crossmr's article. It is not anyone's article. That is why we are trying to come to consensus about the new section. You are the one who swoops in one day, and obsessively demands that we change a whole section that has been up for years. In the end, you are starting to sound suspiciously a lot like Hippo43... Computer1200 (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't keep up with the personal attacks. You may have noticed that Crossmr went to a great deal of trouble to dig into my past edits to find anything he could use against me. The reason that he failed to get any action against me (besides the fact I didn't really do anything wrong) is that I have over 12,000 edits, and 24 articles created. But I have seen, many times, editors with hardly any record of constructive contributions like you blocked for incivility, or forbidden to edit their favorite articles. If you ever run afoul of a user like Crossmr, these attacks may come back to haunt you. Abductive (reasoning) 04:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually it wasn't a great deal of trouble. It took all of 5 minutes to find more examples of your behaviour. A lot less time than you've spending dancing around, playing games, and refusing to cite this supposed consensus you had, but now is quite apparent you don't.--Crossmr (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The relevant rule is WP:UNDUE. Allowing a section on interracial dating preferences to expand to the point that it constitutes the majority of the text in an article allegedly about the sexual fetishization of Asian people is allowing it too much weight. Padding the article with information that belongs in footnoted refs only makes the problem worse. Abductive (reasoning) 05:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
You sound exactly like Hippo43 now. Might want to take a look at WP:SOCK when you get a moment. In anycase, the article is not "allegedly about the sexual fetishization of Asian people;" that is only part of what the slang term might imply when it is used in a certain way. But it does not always imply a sexual attraction. Sorry, we have been through this many times. If I remember correctly, you were the one who argued to say that it was foundationally a sexual phenomenon. Just scroll upward, and you will find the discussion [19]. You tried to push the idea that simply because some people in your life use the term that way, that we were bound to define it that way in the article. Not true. People use the term in different ways. So why do you keep bringing it up? Further, no one has "padded" anything; it is information that is relevant to the article. Computer1200 (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not and you admitted that above, because after you'd already raised UNDUE several times and had it shot down you came out and admitted you hadn't provided the evidence[20]. So were you lying before? Including the name and/or institution behind a study isn't undue weight. Plain and simple. It is proper attribution of where the information comes from and provides the context for the reader. This information can usually be conveyed in only a few words and doesn't wouldn't overly impact the size of the section or anything else.--Crossmr (talk) 06:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
And Abductive: I wouldn't keep up with the semantical gymnastics that keep going in circles. I really don't care about your past edits, Abductive. You have made it very clear — right in this article — that you are not logical when you do not get your way. That is not a personal attack; it is simply obvious. The fact that you play the personal attack card (accusing Crossmr of ad hominem is ridiculous) simply adds to a series of clearly mounting evidence right on this discussion that, for some mysterious reason, you are desperate to get what you want. Computer1200 (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
All I want is to improve the article, which is in sorry shape. If you really think I am socking, I suggest you ask for a SPI. Abductive (reasoning) 05:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed title

Since we now have at minimum 3 sources on this topic, we need to come up with a new title. I'm proposing one, feel free to agree/disagree or propose a different one--Crossmr (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Studies and statistics on racial preference in dating

  • support this title as we have both studies and statistics being provided and they're all being provided in the context of dating. Replacing dating with "mate selection" might also be a consideration.--Crossmr (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you mean the title of the article or the section? Abductive (reasoning) 05:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The section where this aspect is discussed. Obviously the current title is no good with at least 3 different sources available.--Crossmr (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Why not "Racial preferences in dating"? "Studies and statistics on..." would be true of hundreds of thousands of headers since that's what Wikipedia articles are largely composed of; all encyclopedia articles are a summary of what is available in the sources. Abductive (reasoning) 05:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No, wikipedia is comprised of reliable sources. Some of those sources are statistics and studies, but plenty are not. At the current time our 3 sources are specifically studies and statistics. If there were ever non-study non-statistical sources released on this aspect the description might warrant change. But the title should describe the content as clearly as possible. It indicates that what is in the section results from study and not from editorial opinion or otherwise.--Crossmr (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I think "Racial preferences in dating" is a fine compromise. Abductive (reasoning) 06:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
We don't need a proposed title for this section yet. First we need to discuss which, if any, sources to add. The article isn't about racial preferences in dating - it's about one specific preference which is sometimes called the slang term "Asian fetish". If there are reliable sources which explicitly address this subject, they would be good additions to the article, so let's add them. If there are reliable sources which deal with race and dating in general and from which we can synthesise all kinds of crap about "Asian fetish", let's not. If there are blogs publicising dating sites which use their own statistics to show something (what exactly?), but which don't explicitly address this subject, let's not. --hippo43 (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
"Asian fetish" is just one title given to the idea. These sources directly address whether or not the subject is real or imagined. It doesn't need to include one of the many slang words used for the idea to be about it. There is nothing synthesis about them. They are reliable sources, one of them published in the most prestigious journal on economics. They draw their own conclusions, we simply present them.--Crossmr (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't misunderstand me - I'm not objecting to these sources because they don't use the specific words "Asian fetish" or other slang terms, and I'm not objecting in principal to adding more, relevant sources. I object to sources which do not address the issue directly - this is not an article about racial preferences in dating generally. If reliable secondary sources draw conclusions, that relate to a preference for Asian partners, from studies, then of course we should include them. If we dig out conclusions from sources which don't make those conclusions, we are guilty of OR. I haven't had time to read the suggested sources in great detail - can you point me toward any passages in them which directly relate to the subject of the article?
This isn't about whether the concept is real or imagined, it's about the extent to which it is widespread. I don't think anyone is denying that some people are more attracted to Asian people than other races, but the question is how common is this in particular societies. To that end, if there are other sources that we agree should be added, and which we agree merit a section of the article, the section should be titled something like "Extent of preference for Asian partners in dating." (or something less clunky). --hippo43 (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
No, it is an article about the term Asian fetish, its related terms, their usage, meaning, cultural impact (if one exists), the ideas behind them, etc. A study on a general subject (dating preferences) is perfectly acceptable to use in a more specific article. The data isn't automatically invalidated because they didn't narrow it down. The fact is that Asian fetish and the like is often used to describe something to do with dating and sex. If we look at the context in which a good portion of the usages shows up it has something to do with that. It is used in other instances, especially the word Asiaphile. It is perfectly reasonable to say that from a dating perspective these studies and statistics do not seem to indicate that society in general presents this phenomenon. That doesn't invalidated it from occurring in individuals, it simply states these researchers checked to see if any kind of racial bias existed and didn't find any matching the way this term is used. I do think that some old sources could be brought back in in certain contexts to show claims made by various reliable sources.--Crossmr (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I've no idea what part of what I wrote you're disagreeing with, or if you're simply disagreeing out of habit. When I wrote "This isn't about whether the concept is real or imagined, it's about the extent to which it is widespread", I was referring to the section under discussion, not the article. I didn't say we couldn't use more general articles - we should use general articles when they specifically mention this subject, but we can't draw conclusions from them which they don't specifically make, per WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. The Fisman source, by specifically referring to the "stereotype", is the kind of source which we should use to explain if/to what extent this preference exists. As I said, I haven't read these in detail - could you highlight any passages which specifically mention the prevalence or otherwise of the white man-Asian woman combo, then we could discuss them? --hippo43 (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing original research about saying "Okcupid's statistics shows that caucasian males respond/contact to all races equally" if its true. Nothing synthesis about that. Original research. They don't need to mention the stereotype to be legitimate or relevant. There is no conclusion being put forth we're simply reporting a fact. (which is in fact something it does show. The only really strong bias it shows is that not a lot of people seem to be contacting black women). Original research is about interpretation, not simply reporting information. They specifically have statistics that would fall inline with the topic being discussed here.--Crossmr (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
In this case I agree with Crossmr. Rename the section "Racial preferences in dating" and include the Okcupid study. The readers will be perfectly capable of figuring out that OkCupid is not the most reliable of sources. Abductive (reasoning) 18:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course Crossmr is right that we can report information if it's stated in a reliable source. What we can't do, which I suspect some other editors might like to do, is use non-reliable sources or draw conclusions that the sources don't actually make. In this case, the Okcupid source doesn't look at all like a reliable source - blogs are largely not acceptable, and the organisation has no reputation for editorial oversight, accuracy or fact-checking. --hippo43 (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand, they have no negative reputation in this regard, their study used truly collossal amounts of data, and as far as I can see they were careful. Even thought they call it a blog, it has the backing of their site; it is not a blog open to anybody to edit. Abductive (reasoning) 22:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
On self-published sources, WP:RS says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I don't think that's the case here at all. --hippo43 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a blog in name only. See the actual section on blogs that talks about how different reliable sources use the word "blog" A newspaper who has a "blog" that is edited just like any other column is in fact not a blog. An official company blog is a reliable source for that companies opinions. OkCupid, by virtue of running such a large dating site, could be see as an industry expert and this blog is a reliable source for their information. It is why it would be attributed as "OKcupid produced statistics on their users that showed..."--Crossmr (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


  • Ray Fisman Gnews 74[21], Gbooks 84 [22], Gscholar 227 [23]
  • Sheena Iyengar Gnews 130 [24] Gbooks 76 [25], Gscholar 183 [26]
  • Itamar Simonson Gnews 58 [27], Gbooks 303 [28], Gscholar 1260 [29]
  • Emir Kamenica Gnews 16 [30], Gbooks 15 [31], Gscholar 179 [32].

The first 3 are clearly notable. Emir is the only one who might be borderline. Any other false claims you'd like to make?--Crossmr (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

  • In fact, notability really has no bearing in this dispute, since this is not an WP:AfD. Nevertheless, you should read WP:PROF; the requirements for notability of professors are higher than you seem to think. Abductive (reasoning) 06:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, in fact you might want to try reading it yourself. For example Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. or the talk page, where I just asked about this and got the answer. Do you read anything before you cite it at all? Because it really doesn't seem like you do. Fisman is frequently quoted as an expert, as is Iyengar. She is also an author of at least one book.--Crossmr (talk) 06:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You should make articles on them. And see if they survive. Abductive (reasoning) 06:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not required to make an article to prove notability. That's been done with the sources. You just brought up PROF as your defense that they didn't make it, and you forgot to read it, so you're changing your story again. Is this really the only game you got? Edit war over and over and change your story with every edit? First it was undue weight, then it was vanity, then it was spam, then it was whatever personal issue you've got going on in your life driving this about juniour professors posting wikipedia articles on their doors, then it was complete and utter irrelevance about aesthetic opinions, then it was notability, then when notability is okay, now its an article. You're doing a very poor job of treading water. Still waiting on that old account name.--Crossmr (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • And yet nobody is taking your side at AN/I. Abductive (reasoning) 07:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Fisman study, point by point

I can't see us getting very far on this - it's already become very lame. Seems to be no alternative but to go through the points of contention one at a time. (There may be other points of disagreement that I've missed.) The version I propose for now (61 words) is: "A study by the economist Ray Fisman on dating preferences among a group of 412 graduate students did not find evidence of "the stereotype of a white male preference for East Asian women".[1] The study found that there was a significantly higher pairing of white men with East Asian women simply because East Asian women discriminate against black and hispanic men.[2]"

Its own section

As above, no way is this merited. As things stand, absent agreement on the need for a section on similar sources, this could easily be in the same section as other sources. There is no justification for this single source to have such prominence. --hippo43 (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

For the one study, no. But now that there is a second study and a set of statistics released, they could use their own section. I think the section needs discussing first then it's contents. I also think we need to consider some of the old (or any) sources that simply mention Asian fetish, Asiaphile, Yellow fever and find a way to neutrally include them in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 00:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Quantity of text

Per WP:UNDUE, we ought to reduce the amount of text as much as possible, to give proportionate weight to this material. It should not be given more prominence than the other sources used in the article. The version I wrote above is 61 words, still more than any other source, and still 22% of the article. --hippo43 (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


For me, the lengthy quote is unnecessary. It is just good writing to rewrite a quotation into our own words. Don't know for sure, but I suspect this is covered by policy somewhere. --hippo43 (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Two-year" study

I see no need to refer to this as a "two-year study" in the text - this serves as a peacock term here. We don't do the same for any other source - we don't say, for example, that it took Hwang two years to write M. Butterfly. The detail about the methodology should be in the footnote. --hippo43 (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Proper attribution and description of the study is essential to reader comprehension. I've seen the media refer to "studies" plenty of time that when you dig and get the details it was some thing done on 8 subjects over a period of 2 weeks, indicating that this study being referenced isn't all that comprehensive. "Two-year" is a hyphenated word and doesn't significantly increase the word count.--Crossmr (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"Columbia" study

As above, this is a peacock term. Serves no purpose other than to promote the value of this source. Let the source speak for itself. Readers can decide how credible it is. Given that there is good reason within policy to reduce the amount of text given to this source, we should be removing unnecessary words wherever possible. --hippo43 (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This study was published in the most prestigious economic journal out there. It would seem to be a valuable source, again proper attribution isn't a peacock term. Peacock terms are when you refer to someone as the "greatest" whatever.--Crossmr (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"2007" study

This is likewise unnecessary. Except for one, we don't mention the publication date for the other sources. If it's relevant when this study was pulished, it's relevant for the example of usage. --hippo43 (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said this is a final publish date. The actual time the study was run looks like it might have been around 2002-2004. It isn't crucial to context. If the study was more than 20 years ago I might say keep the date.--Crossmr (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"412" or "more than 400" students

412 is precise. No reason to quote from Slate when we can use the actual number from the study. --hippo43 (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Naming the researchers

No objection from me to naming Fisman (the lead author), but no need to list the others in the text, and no need to list biographical detail for Fisman, in line with the other sources. Footnote can cover these details. --hippo43 (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Iyengar has more notability than Fisman, and Simonson pretty close. The only one without any real significant notability Kamenica. Fisman is identified as a co-author and not the sole author. So providing only Fisman's name seems a bit like putting a point of view on it. Fisman does seem to be the lead, so "et al" might be a useful addition here to inform the reader that there are more researchers behind this.--Crossmr (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning where the study received coverage

I don't see how this helps the reader at all. We don't do it for other sources - for example, listing where they were reviewed and discussed, so we shouldn't be doing it for this study. --hippo43 (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

in text no, but they can be used as citations for various pieces of information.--Crossmr (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)