Jump to content

Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 18
Archive
Archives

Asian Fetishism

Please do not move this page to another page unless you can provide a reason why. Just like I have to substantiate everything I contribute, you will have to do the same. Orangemango decided to change the title of the page without providing any reasons. So I believe I have a right to change it back as like I wrote, the changes was not substantiated. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Asian_fetishism&oldid=215761044 06:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkguy (talk • contribs)



Study at Columbia

I am inserting the Columbia study again into the article that shows empirically (at least among East Asian women) that there is no scientific evidence for a widespread obsessive fetish for Asian women. I want to make something very clear: I will be visiting this page often to make sure that this section is not removed. As it stands it is a racist piece of immature mush with no academic merit complete with very questionable sourcing that needs to be checked and verified.

Please do not to attempt to omit the Columbia study again; I notice that "Wiki Fighter99" deleted the whole study outright. That is unacceptable and childish. By deleting this study, you ignore the academic evidence that "Asian fetish" is indeed not widespread at all. In fact, one must acknowledge that the evidence gathered over the course of two years -- scientific evidence -- shows this plainly. To not acknowledge this is to be entirely lacking of any unbiased academic rigor, and betrays a desire to simply push one's own personal agenda of racist innuendo toward caucasian males. Racism is wrong and hateful and certainly has no place within any academic discussions of social behavior. If you want to push an anti-white racist agenda, do it on your own blog.

In the end, it is my opinion that the term "Asian fetish" is a slang term that some use to describe a simple attraction. Slang terms are not articles in Wikipedia. It does not matter who uses it, or how they use it. If a professor at Yale uses the term "fart," that does not mean that there should be an article in Wikipedia about the term. Further, if these people who use the term "Asian fetish" want to garner respect from the academia, they most certainly need to refer to my prior post below concerning the clinical nature of the term, number one, and number two, the frequency of said phenomenon.

As it stands, we have a completely respectable, credible academic study telling us that the idea of a widespread obsession over Asian women by caucasian men is not real. And by the way, there is no contention that there are not some off-balance people from every racial group who have weird obsessions for certain kinds of people. But that is rare -- as is said "Asian Fetish."

In any case, I will not allow The Columbia study to be deleted again, and will visit this page without fail as many times as I need to in order to make sure this extremely valid study remains within the body of the article. And do not try to label this "vandalism." It is not vandalism to simply add relevant information that brings balance to a very racist article. I am not asking for anything more than balanced, scientific, reasoned thinking. I will be scouring the sources that are cited (as I did about a year ago) in the near future. Computer1200 (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Your quotes are from the slate article and not from the study. The article is an opinion about what the result of what the study proves. The study never set out to prove that asian fetish does not exist. It was a general study about speed dating with a focus on race. I suggest you actually put a DIRECT reference to the study not the article. Put DIRECT quotes from the study that supports Ray Fisman's claims. I am changing your title since it's a gross mis-representation of an obivously opinionated article as being the study which it's not. Yes, I know Fisman was one of the people performing the study. But just because you performed a study does not mean you can claim it proves whatever you want. He was not even one of the psychologists who performed the study! Yet his whole article reads like a psychological analysis. However, this analysis came from an economist, which begs the question exactly what grounds does he have to make the claims he is making? His article can read like a person rationalizing away asian fetish when the study clearly reveals a high certain gender/race pairings are obviously more common than others. To say that those people of a certain gender/race combination who goes after another specific gender/race combination are less biased than other is just an attempt to rationalize away an obvious racial preference. But that's just my opinion. Unless I perform a study to specifically test this or disprove, specifically this, I have no right to put this on the asian fetish article.
Opinions have no place on a wikipedia article. This article is clearly an opinion. I will change the title to make it clear that it's Fisman's opinion. eventually I will delete it. Tkguy (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow. It is amazing that you would actually remove discussion content from the discussion page. You must be getting nervous. Further, the fact that you would actually challenge a scientific study from an ivy-league institution like Columbia with a straight face in a serious manner so betrays the fact that you are reaching at straws and simply threatened by the fact that the study rebuts the mush you are trying to push through this article. You do not have the right to change anything about the Columbia Study in this article until you discuss it with people here on the discussion page. You do not own Wikipedia and you do not own this article. If you want to be part of it, then you will discuss changes you want to make here, on the discussion page, first.
Further, I have been checking into the sources of your article, as has Hippo, and they are horrible. Many are dead links; many are from fringe sources that cannot be accepted. I will be working on this area of the article soon.
Here's a preview: The whole first introductory paragraph is sourced from a single article that references a DEAD LINK. You are not allowed to simply throw up a webpage as a source, and then say anything you want to say. This is against Wikipedia guidelines, and you will be held accountable to the guidelines from this day forward.
Meanwhile, this whole article, "Asian Fetish," makes an exceptional, very controversial claim about a large group of people: white men. According to Wikipedia, "exceptional claims require high-quality sources." [WP:SOURCES] Understand very clearly, TKguy: if you are going to make negligent, irresponsible, and unreliable claims about a whole ethnic group, you had sure better be able to completely and unequivocally support it with absolutely credible sources, like I have with the Columbia Study. I am going to dedicate a large amount of time making sure your sources are according to Wikipedia guidelines. Also, FYI: I check this article everyday.Computer1200 (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, the Columbia study greatly improves the article. Regardless of whether they are disputing or supporting the notion of "Asian fetish", all sources should be high quality and substantive, not opinionating. Unfortunately, it seems to be the only substantive and referenced part of the whole article. Perhaps the title is why this article attracts so many low-quality POV edits? It's not actually a "fetish", according to psychological terminology. Does it appear in DSM-V? And as (perjorative) slang, the term is not well-known outside of some corners of the internet. An encyclopedia shouldn't be taking slang and POV terms at _face value_, but should be talking about them in a neutral way, and including critical views. I would suggest that things that could improve this article are: 1) another title or at least clarification that this is not technically a fetish according to psychology 2) mention of the fact that the term is offensive to some and can be viewed itself as a stereotype (sort of like "jungle fever"). 3)scientific and anthropological evidence pro or con, and mention of the notion of exogamy (outmarriage). Otherwise, this is simply one big opinion piece, and a place for pseudo-encyclopedic ranting about interracial relationships. That's why I like merging into an article with a better title that is more NPOV, ie. Asian interracial dating, or interracial dating, or Asian racial preference or some such. A bad title attracts unserious people to ruin the article, and lacks conceptual focus. Soda80 (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised?

Throughout the years, I have revisited this article and repeatedly tried to bring some logic to bear. The article itself, over time, always morphs back to the same POV, unscientific, unstudied form that it is now.

Here are the main points I have tried to make in the past:

1. You must show empirical evidence for the existence of what is a clinical term that implies dementia and imbalance.

You must show clinical proof that said "Asian fetish" exists, and you must show how it is different from simple personal attraction. I know many white men who have an attraction for Latinas. That does not make it a "fetish"; I know black women who have an "attraction" for white men; I know Asian women who have an "attraction" for black men. I know white women who have an attraction for Asian men. That does not mean that they have a "fetish." What many here call a "fetish," is simply a personal preference — nothing more, nothing less. That is, unless you can furnish proof based on empirical experimentation by qualified scientists. Outside of that, there is no logical evidence that the great bulk of what this articles addresses is anything more than an issue of attraction between different kinds of people.

2. Even if you happen to find clinical proof that an "Asian Fetish" actually exists (good luck), you must then concede that the phenomenon is rare, because that is the nature of a fetish by definition.

There is the implication here that said "Asian fetish" is widespread. If you insist on using an unscientific slang term that cannot be proven to clinically exist, then you must at least point out that all fetishes are rare. That has not happened here.

But alas, there has never been a willingness to discuss these facts here. There is only the white man who has a "fetish" for asian women. Further, this fetish is weird, bizarre, and there is always the subtle implication that it involves violence. In the end, this article has never been academic or balanced; it has only rarely been close to NPOV. In it's present form, it is racist. It is unfortunate, because the idea of cross-racial attraction is an interesting sociological phenomenon. But there are certain editors here who demand a subtle, condemning tone with this article, whether it is logical or not, that paints non-Asians who date Asians as evil beasts who would dominate and exploit.

Please remember the unfortunate fact that the great bulk of exploitation of Asian women — in plain daylight, throughout history, and up to this very day — is committed by Asian males. This is not only plainly seen in the tens of thousands of room salons all over Asia where girls are routinely exploited and treated as momentary sex robots by businessmen, but also in the ruthless trafficking of women and children for prostitution and sexual slavery. The customers for said trafficking are almost entirely Asian men and women. And don't forget the rising trend for Asian women to buy younger Asian guys for sexual flings. In the end, this article strikes a subtle tone that might be understood to be condemnation of white males for simply being attracted to, dating, and/or marrying Asian women because, well, in the end they are simply projecting their evil desires for power onto these poor innocent Asian women.

If you want to sound intelligent, you need to be very careful with this article. It is not disputed that there are some non-Asians who have unhealthy obsession for Asian women. But this is a clinical, psychological condition — and it is rare. Responsible, intelligent people make a clear distinction between a fetish and an attraction. It seems there is a group who would simply enforce their bias toward white males who are attracted to Asian women. Next, there is the obsessive demonization of this attraction, calling it a "fetish," and subtly implying that it is all about domination. Going on, they imply that the only reason white men date Asian women is that they are ugly, and cannot find someone white to date. This is all incredibly non-NPOV and offensive not only to non-Asians but also to the Asian women all over the world who simply fell in love with a non-Asian and are very happy.

In the end, I wonder: what kind of motive would drive seemingly intelligent people to defend such a sloppy thesis? It is very interesting to ponder, indeed.Computer1200 (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It always morphs back into POV opinionating/advocacy because of the title. I know this isn't really legit (you can't cite the presence or absence of other articles on WP), but does Wikipedia have an article called "Jungle Fever" that becomes a forum for badmouthing black-white couples?? No. Perhaps there was once an entry, but that has been removed and it redirects to an article on Miscegenation, the history and controversy surround the term. That article is far more serious. Over time, the crappy articles are deleted, but this article refuses to either improve or be removed.Soda80 (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

This article has some serious problems, as pointed out in the discussions below, including problems with the title: It's not actually a "fetish" and the perjorative slang term is not well-known. The "racial stereotype" section seems to be a merely a random assortment of how Asians have been stereotyped -- which might fit well on a page called "Asian Stereotypes", not this one. The Columbia Study, which arguably disputes the case for Asian Fetishisms' existence (which was never actually made), is not given any context whatsoever, and is simply a non sequitor to the previous content. Presumably this is because attempts at context were removed by the self-appointed censors of this page.

But the biggest problem it has is its obvious POV -- it is a perjorative slang, but the controversy surrounding it, as well as dissenting and critical views, is lacking entirely. An encyclopedia shouldn't be taking slang and POV terms at face value, but should be talking about them in a neutral way, and including critical views. I would suggest that absolutely necessary are the following: 1) clarification that this is not a fetish according to psychology 2) mention of the fact that the term is offensive to some and can be viewed itself as a racial stereotype (sort of like "jungle fever"). 3)anthropological evidence pro or con, and mention of the notion of exogamy (outmarriage). Otherwise, this is simply one big opinion piece, and a place for pseudo-encyclopedic ranting about interracial relationships. Please add your thoughts to what could improve this article, if anything. Thanks Soda80 (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I felt when reading it that it was also one big opinion piece. The articles referenced weren't anything more than some journalists opinion. Here's a link to a slate article by Ray Fisman. Ray Fisman is the author of Economic Gangsters: Corruption, Violence, and the Poverty of Nations (with Edward Miguel). He is the Lambert Family professor of social enterprise and research director of the Social Enterprise Program at the Columbia Business School. The article is about a larger study of dating habits among men and women. There's likely a way to link to the original research. But one aspect of the article that may apply to this wikipedia entry is the following from http://www.slate.com/id/2177637/nav/tap3:

Two wrinkles on this: 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. We also found that regional differences mattered. Daters of both sexes from south of the Mason-Dixon Line revealed much stronger same-race preferences than Northern daters.

Which leads me to think that the notion of an Asian Fetish be the driving force behind some asian women hooking up with white men is probably only real as seen in the eyes of other people looking at them. In a sense, it's a form of bigotry and mainstreams uncomfortablness with interracial dating and it's perpetuated by this wikipedia entry. I won't go as far to say that there aren't some guys who have overly fetishized this, but there are people who fetishize just about anything you could ever imagine, and it doesn't mean that everytime you see an interracial couple, whether it's white with black, or indian with whatever that this is a fetish. It would be like assuming any guy with a girl who wore heels - had a foot fetish. Anyways, article seemed kind of like it didn't include any real social science collected data and does seem a little one-sided. Sorry, just realized the above person was referencing the same article. Haha. I had read the wikipedia entry and then was like, that doesn't sound right, but couldn't find where to put the info, because I don't understand wiki things, so NPOV looked right. Sorry.24.218.138.87 (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Should this article be renamed?

One problem with this article is that the term "Asian fetish" is not really used that often in reliable sources. Google Books shows only 34 hits, many of which are simply passing mentions with no encyclopedic value. Google Scholar's record is even more thin: a mere 13 hits. There are lots of Web hits on Google, but the overwhelming majority are unreliable sources that don't come close to meeting WP:V.

I think that we should rename this article and expand its scope. As long as it has the current title, I think it will continue to attract biased and tendentious editing. I tentatively suggest renaming it to "Alleged sexual objectification of Asian women in Western culture." Clunky, but it more accurately summarizes what the article is about, and provides scope to bring in a much wider array of reliable sources without falling afoul of WP:NOR. If anyone has any better suggestions, then please let me know. *** Crotalus *** 08:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Short answer is yes. The title is POV, technically inaccurate (not a "fetish" in a pschological DSM sense) and a bit of a neologism. But also, the title sets the tone -- it is unserious and attracts opinionators, instead of academic and credibly sourced edits. As long as it retains its juvenile slangy title, it will be a poor article. Check the history if you don't believe me. This is an article which never improves. It's astounding! Soda80 (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What I find interesting about this topic is that...is there any equivalent that exists, about the fact that many asian women pursue/desire white men because they see them as "trophies"? It is not only about white men pursuing asian women. It's also about asian women making themselves more available/approachable to white men, than to asian men. Many white men pursue asian women, not so much because they WANT the Asian women, but because they know the Asian women want THEM (which makes them feel good about themselves/desired). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.88.140 (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't summarise an article with the title, you summarise an article in the WP:LEDE. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
No, but you create point of view simply with the word fetish. Since it is a recognized psychological condition you're setting a certain tone for the article. If the only people drawing these conclusions about others are not qualified experts then it really is just alleged and not a statement of fact.--Crossmr (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm also frustrated with the fact that there aren't many credible sources on this topic. I think that Crotalus's tentative title will give the impression that the article overlaps too much with stereotypes of East Asians. миражinred 20:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it should be renamed or deleted. Asian fetish doesn't fit the definition of a fetish as defined in either the ICD-10 or the DSM-IV, or even Wikipedia. As we've found, its hard to locate reliable sources for something that doesn't exist. - Headwes (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I myself isn't sure that the title is appropriate. However, I think the title refers to "fetish" in a more colloquial sense as the term seems more like a neologism and thus should not be subject to ICD. Again, this problem goes back to lack of reliable sources which leads to an unclear definition. I think it might be a good idea to come up with a list of tentative titles. миражinred (speak, my child...) 00:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, slightly. The unclear definition is the root of the problem, not the lack of sources. Is this article about a pathology or a preference? What sources we use and which we consider reliable will follow from that. - Headwes (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I generally agree that "Asian fetish" is a poor name, but I think creating a new topic also presents an OR problem unless we have non-trivial sources about the new topic itself. I'm not sure any source quite captures "Alleged sexual objectification of Asian women in Western culture," and that name does suggest some overlap with the stereotypes article. Asian fetish seems to be a known phenomena in the context of dating, but the terminology and the scholarship (if any) is not consistent. I agree with Saranghae honey that "fetish" is being used in a non-technical slang sense, and that the root problem with the article is poor sources. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
"Asian fetish" is, as you say, a slang term, and using a slang term to describe the phenomenon it refers to, is very problematic in an encyclopedia. I think an article on a slang term should only deal with its etymology and usage. As an example, see fuck. It would be completely unsuitable for that article to discuss sexual intercourse in general. Kaitenbushi (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You raise a good point. Perhaps the stereotyping section and studies should be moved to another article that deals with stereotypes and Asian fetish article should just mention controversies and the usage in the media. миражinred (speak, my child...) 03:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
There are many sources that does not treat asian fetish as just something sexual. Fetish means an abnormal obsession. Asian fetish therefore means an abnormal obsession for things that are related to the people or culture of Asia. The term is fine and it's sited in 748 books according to google. User:Crotalus horridus surrounded the term with quotes which greatly limited the many forms in which the term is used in literature but it's very obvious that these authors are referring to asian fetish. It should be kept in mind that User:Saranghae honey and User:Crotalus horridus submitted an AfD for this page. Tkguy (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Google finds 748 books that contain both Asian and fetish in the same volume of text... That's hardly a useful metric. - Headwes (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Like Crotalus said, the correct count is 34 (now 35, it seems). Cool Hand Luke 05:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Uncle G has a proposal to rename and merge this topic with Asiaphile, as outlined at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reducing magnetism. User has also drafted a new article from scratch. I tend to support this solution. Opinions? Cool Hand Luke 04:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • For simplicity (since the Noticeboard discussion will be archived), I repeat here what I said there: The problem with this article and with Asiaphile (AfD discussion) is, in part, that they are both inherently-non-neutral titles. The very names imply a slant on the subject. The two names are both names for a single subject, each with a different implicit point of view inherent in the name itself. (This is based upon what sources say, too.) Thus they attract in non-neutral editors who want to promote the name's point of view and exclude the point of view that is contrary to the one implicit in the title. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view we should not have articles that are inherently non-neutral because of their scopes. I've suggested a merger into a neutrally named article before, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asiaphile; it's also been suggested here; and there's even a consensus to merge and pick a better name at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asiaphile/2004-12-14. Rather than have this problem carry on for another 3 years, with non-neutrality as its cause, it is probably time that we bite the bullet, stop the non-neutrality, and do that. See User:Uncle G/Preference for Asian women by non-Asian men for something that you are welcome to start a merged article with. Uncle G (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

First let me say that I doubt I'll involve myself much with this article other than reverting vandalism. Having edited this article in the past (the article looks completely different from then, by the way), I'm resigned to the fact that this article will always attract editors who only want to advance one POV and that editing this article is a waste of effort in the long run. Having said that, however, I do oppose the article renaming. Regardless of whether or not you think a certain writing or article is academic enough to use as a source for the article, a simple google search reveals that there are plenty of opinions out there, and they all refer to this subject with the simple term "Asian fetish" or "Asiaphile". It's not just the people who support the existence of "Asian fetish", even the people feel negatively about the subject use this term, as we even see from Phoebe Eng, Erika Kim and Tracy Quan, who are currently used as sources for this article. Nobody refers to it with drawn out terminology like "Preference for Asian women by non-Asian men" or some such. You also risk running into disconnects with sources by such renaming. If a source refers specifically to "Asian fetish", is it really referring to "preference for Asian women by non-Asian men"? The usage of the term itself has been questioned in some sources. Point is, the article is not so much about "preference for Asian women by non-Asian men", as it is about the term itself, "Asian fetish". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • You do have to look at those sources though. Fetish is a medical diagnosis. Is anyone who is using this term a psychologist qualified to make that diagnosis? The term is also used in pop culture to simply mean a preference or obsession that may not actually qualify as a fetish. If we don't make certain that we distinguish between the two we're creating our own POV by almost giving legitimacy to their calling it that. If we do have two camps discussing the same thing but giving it different names then we need to find some sort of neutral name for the topic and discuss both terms in the same article.--Crossmr (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Never in the history of the article has it been claimed that it is a classified medical disorder. And the word "fetish" in common English usage does not always refer to a medical diagnosis(dictionary.com definition - [1]). If there is concern that it could be mistaken to be a classified medical disorder, then include content to explain that this is not so. The article does that in the current state[2]. This doesn't take away from the fact that "Asian fetish" is the much more common terminology than "Preference for Asian women by non-Asian men" and its variations. WP:COMMONNAME would dictate that the article stay at its current name. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • And again let me point out how this is not a POV issue at all - in our sources, both sides of the "Asian fetish" argument continue to use the term "Asian fetish" itself. It is only WP editors who object to naming this subject as "Asian fetish", not our sources on either side of the argument. So how about we stick to sources instead of original research? Are there sources that refer to this subject matter not as "Asian fetish" or "Asiaphile"? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
      • But the lead section does just that. It very clearly states that asian fetish refers to sexual objectification which is the psychological definition of a fetish. Which makes it seem like the article is going to be about a psychological or medical concept, for which we really have no basis. The lead doesn't clarify who it is that has defined this term as such. Its only the American Heritage's 4th definition An abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment; a fixation. which really defines what we're describing here. Which is certainly not a global view. The other definitions don't match what the sources are saying. Our sources aren't universally saying that they think asians have magical powers, or that they revere them, as reverence wouldn't carry a negative connotation. We now have the text saying its not in the psychological diagnostic books, which is good, but we need to make sure we've got a source there at least for someone to verify it against. I'm not sure if the full text of both of these are available online or not. The text was there and not there, and then back again (rightly or wrongly) but it needs to stay there. If it ends up removed again nothing in the lead clarifies that the use of Asian fetish comes from non-psychologists.--Crossmr (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Woh wait a minute, logical fallacy here - the fact that the psychology community defines a fetish as sexual objectification does not make all sexual objectification a medically diagnosed condition. A guy can sexually objectify something as simple as a girl wearing a bikini. Here's a simpler comparison - a german shephard is a dog, but not all dogs are german shephards. Again, the article has never once claimed that it is a medically diagnosed condition, and "Asian fetish" is by far the most common terminology. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I never said it wasn't the most common term. A guy can sexually objectify a girl in a bikini, but that doesn't make it a fetish. It most certainly doesn't because actual fetishism centers around sexualizing non-sexual things. Most bikinis are made to be sexy. The people who write using the term fetish aren't qualified medical professionals. However the lead is written in such a way that it defines Asian fetish just like it belonged in Sexual_fetishism, but as pointed out it clearly isn't recognized as such by the medical community. My point is that we have to avoid, common name or not, possibly giving the reader a reason to believe that this is being presented as any kind of accepted medical condition as some other fetishes may be. The trailing sentence in the lead is very important to this and if we don't want to combine asiaphile and asian fetish to create a larger article, we need to ensure that it remains there. Just because we have a reliable source who says something doesn't mean we should blindly reprint what they've written, knowing that the term has another widely accepted and used meaning, context is important to distinguish this. This could even be as simple as identify the people that use this term simply as writers.--Crossmr (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
            • If the lead is misleading for the reader, then edit it for clarity. The push to rename this article here is based on nothing but original research, and is against both WP:COMMONNAME and the practice of using reliable sources - again, "Asian fetish" is the term used by sources on both sides of the argument. I mean, we might as well rename Spotted dick if article name is the end-all-and-be-all to an article's subject matter. But Spotted dick continues to have its article name because that's the most common name for the subject matter. I'd like to point out also, that in the article's past versions, there was extensive coverage to explain terminology in addition to the subject that the term "Asian fetish" refers to. But that has long been taken out. Perhaps it is time to add it back in. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
              • As I was revising my response I had meant to say that I was okay with leaving the name as it was so long as the origin was clear. I guess I accidentally chopped it. If there was more clarity in past versions it would be good to provide it again as long as its properly sourced.--Crossmr (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
                • Ok that's great. Like I said before, I've basically given up on this article, so I'll take my leave of the discussion now. But I implore all interested editors to look at this subject with a neutral eye. It doesn't matter what you personally think of the subject matter, what matters is what the sources say, and that the two prevalent sides of the issue needs to be presented. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Wrong on several points: Nobody refers to it with drawn out terminology like "Preference for Asian women by non-Asian men" or some such. — Wrong, as reading even just the sources cites in the current article would have shown. Hu and Fisman both use that description, for examples; and, conversely, several sources cited in the current article make no mention of a "fetish". the article is not so much about "preference for Asian women by non-Asian men", as it is about the term itself — If that were true, the article would be a misplaced dictionary article. Fortunately, it isn't true. this is not a POV issue at all — Yes, it is. We even have sources that tell us this outright. Please read them. The push to rename this article here is based on nothing but original research — Wrong yet again. It's based upon what the sources say. The sources say that the existing two names are inherently biased, and connote opposing slanted views on a single subject.

    Your argument here amounts to nothing more than counting Google hits. As Wikipedia:Google test says, that's a long-since debunked way of making an argument. Worse, your argument is saying that because the non-neutral names are more common, Wikipedia should be non-neutral too. In fact, our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view fundamental policy overrides our naming conventions. Counting Google hits is not research. Uncle G (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


Prostitution

Would someone mind posting a quote from this book where she links prostitution in the Phillipines with Asian fetish? Also, what sources does she cite to support this? - Headwes (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you actually read the book? have you read the book? if not please do not assume that this is not so. She spends much of the book talking about the sex tourism industry in thailand and the phillipines and bangkok and other countries. How they began and how they are striving to this day. Tkguy (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh course. That's the topic of the book. But where, specifically does she claim sex tourism is supported by Asian fetish? (and not ordinary horniness, the proliferation of prostitution, or even pedophilia?) We can't just assume that she said sex tourism is driven by Asian fetish. Cool Hand Luke 07:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
All references must specifically justify the claims in question. Any speculative interpretation is considered original research and not allowed. Please cite the specific quote from this book (including page number) where Prasso attributes prostitution in Thailand and the Phillippines to Asian fetish. *** Crotalus *** 12:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I checked the book in question on Google Books. Although not all pages are available, the book does discuss Asian fetish at some length. I found the section discussing prostitution in Thailand and the Philippines (starting p. 153), but I did not find any statement justifying the claim that it "is largely supported by men with Asian fetish." I would rather we go with a direct quote than a paraphrase. We cannot go beyond what the source itself claims. *** Crotalus *** 12:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The book is a controversial pop-psychology piece, that really should not be quoted here as a credible source. But the idea that prostitution is supported by "men with an asian fetish" is of course ridiculous. Everyone knows that the great bulk of prostitution — including sexual slavery, child prostitution and abuse, and other malicious sexual crimes — is committed by asian men on asian women. Want proof? Just google "asian men prostitution"— a plethora of nasty and twisted ways that asian men propogate and sustain the horrible sexual business trade among women, both of age, and underaged. Asian gangs have a great part to play in this. In the end, what we have here is the tendency for some to blow this whole issue out of hand, and make it into a huge crime by white men against asian women. It's silly. ~~computer1200 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.217.103 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
"Everyone knows that the great bulk of prostitution — including sexual slavery, child prostitution and abuse, and other malicious sexual crimes — is committed by asian men on asian women" ~~computer1200. Do you have a citation from a credible source for this statement? 38.99.165.166 (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed edits per request

I've removed certain edits from this talk page history, so they're now located at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/More about Tkguy, where discussion is more appropriately focused on the editor. The removal of these edits explains the weird diff here[3], where several intermediate edits have obviously been removed. The time stamps and contributers for these edits are all as they appear. By siphoning off these edits, this content can easily be deleted once the relevant ANI is over. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed community topic ban for User:Tkguy on Asian fetish.

Remember, article talk pages should be focused on improving articles rather than criticizing editors. The proper forum for discussion about editors is WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI, WP:RFAR, and similar pages. WP:CIVIL. Cool Hand Luke 07:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This was archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive354#Proposed community topic ban for User:Tkguy on Asian fetish. Like many ANI threads, it didn't garner much continuing interest, but I think there's at least support for a community 1RR restriction on Tkguy for this subject. Here were the independent commentators: Jayron32 (supporting community topic ban), Spartaz (suggesting voluntary 1RR), Jehochman (who insisted that RFC/U should be done first), MastCell and Sandstein (supporting topic ban or at least 1RR). Only Jehochman appeared opposed to community sanction, and he didn't follow up on questions from us, who appear 100% in favor of a topic ban.
It appears that Tkguy has left the project for now, but if he returns, he should know that any edit warring (reverting more than once per day) should result in blocks. Tkguy should try to persuade others on the talk page if he wishes to continue. Cool Hand Luke 03:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Tkguy did create a new article for Asiaphile however. It probably should have been DRV'd, but editors here might be interested in simply redirecting it anyway, as per Uncle G's suggestion. Cool Hand Luke 03:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me.--Crossmr (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Pornography?

A fetish is sexual in nature, but the article itself does not discuss pornography. I have searched "asian fetish" and "pornography" to find reliable articles and sources only to see results that show porn sites on the top and nothing else. Should this article be a part of Wikipedia pornography? миражinred (speak, my child...) 02:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Google is not a source. A lot of terms would only porn when searched in conjunction with "pornography." The concept has been published in reliable sources outside of porn—the whole Asian Mystique book seems to be largely about the topic. We should just fix the article by removing OR and extraneous material. It'll be smaller, but verifiable. Cool Hand Luke 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting work at User:Uncle G/Preference for Asian women by non-Asian men

I thought User:Uncle G's work was very interesting and relevant since we are discussing possibly renaming the article. The possible draft discusses terminology of connected terms such as "Asiaphile" and "Asiaphilia." It does contain fringe sources that have been deleted per the discussion at this talk page such as AsianWeek, but it does contain work from academia that are not on the Asian fetish article yet. I don't know if an article titled "Preference for Asian women by non-Asian men" will be created at Wikipedia but the title seems more accurate and it is at least worth a look. миражinred (speak, my child...) 20:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I read his version and I noticed several problems with it. The whole page is incredibly US-centric. In common UK usage the term "Asian" often refers to South Asians, whereas in common US usage the term "Asian" often refers to Oriental Asians (East Asians and South-East Asians). The "Asian fetish" usually applies to Oriental Asians. Besides, Asia is a large continent. Technically, if a British man married an Israeli woman, from the way this article reads, there's nothing to say that that is not an "Asian fetish" because Israel is geographically in Asia (although much nearer Europe and North Africa than Japan or China). Equally, if a Turkish man marries a Chinese woman, despite them being both "Asian" (i.e. from the geographical continent of Asia), the racial differences are so pronounced that the Turkish man could be seen to have this "Asian fetish" which wouldn't make sense because he is "Asian" himself, although much closer to European than he is to his wife's race. Aside from the terminology, the entire page makes little to no reference to the concept of preference of non-Oriental men to Oriental women outside a United States context. I know for a fact that such pairings occur fairly frequently in the United Kingdom as well - and then there's the rest of the world to consider, too.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Us-centric is a problem.. I need to look, but the authors we're quoting who are using the term asian-fetish, are they all north american? Because again this will create a context that is extremely important for the reader to understand. Perhaps this is solely a viewpoint held by those authors in north america and really isn't a global view or issue.--Crossmr (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I know that Wikipedia is not a forum, but also, Wikipedia is a community, and I'm curious that since this article is hotly disputed, some of the editors here may be white males who are interested in East Asian women. I personally don't really see the appeal in particular. It just concerns me that editors with strong views towards or against this topic may be inclined towards POV-pushing.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Crossmr, I agree that it's a problem that this topic tends to be US-centric, but it's not unknown outside the US. As I said, the "Asian fetish" definitely seems to be known in the UK, if not written about as much. In fact I've talked to white males from different European countries who've mentioned it.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
          • It would be nice to have some reliable sources from across the world to really put it in perspective for the reader if they exist. Editors can come to an article for a lot of reasons, and that could very well be one of them, but let's try and assume good faith (even on a controversial article) until an editor gives us a good reason to think otherwise. My only concern here is to make sure everything is sourced properly and npov is being followed. As things calm down it should be easier to hold discussions about individual pieces of text and ensure that we have consensus for how they're written and what is being used as a source.--Crossmr (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Of course they are. They disagree that it's a "fetish" and argue that they are "Asiaphiles". And the people with the opposing view say that it's not a genuine -philia, it's simply a "fetish" that regards women as objects. And because we have two separate articles, each with a name that connotes a single point of view on the subject, we get splits and mergers and neutrality disputes, and go around and around and around for at least three years, now. As I said above, it's time to bite the bullet and stop this, by using a neutral title that gives the article a neutral scope. Uncle G (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • As I said above, it's something to start a merged article from. U.S.-centrism is simply a reflection of what sources I was able to find, all of which discussed solely the U.S.. If you find any sources that discuss the subject for other countries specifically, then there's nothing stopping you adding another section for that country. The "by American men" in the section title was intended to be a glaringly obvious hint in this regard. ☺

      I don't claim credit for this title, by the way. Most of the sources use this phraseology. Chang, for example, talks of the "preference for Oriental women". (Yes, she uses "Asian Fetish" in the title of her paper. But that's actually a prime example of loaded language. She's in the camp that has the point of view that it is a real honest-to-goodness sexual fetish. She even pulls out Freud.) Similarly, Ming Tan uses "The preference for Asian Women" as the title for part 1 of her book. That's slightly too large a scope for this article. (She includes Asian men as well as non-Asian men in the scope of what she's discussing, addressing the former in chapter 6.) Uncle G (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I would like to see some mention of "Asian fetish" from the perspective of the United Kingdom, but I haven't tried looking for sources.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
True. It's very US-centric. миражinred (speak, my child...) 03:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm european and therefore it's at best "very"-US-centric. That has a reason, and I best say it with a quote (from myself): "Sexuality for a Caucasian woman is so tightly wound up in issues of abuse and pain that it is virtually impossible to address the specter of a Caucasian woman's sexuality without helping her to recover from psychotic and emotional diseases first." This is not the case with Asian women. As white males we have a much better insight into power and politics then in the psyche and the emotions. That's why Asian women are more attractive to us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.2.35 (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What we don't know...

This article raises many questions. Is "Asian fetish" used as a means of explaining the white-Asian couples? In most of the white-Asian couples I've seen, they married the person, not the race. Is it possible for women to have Asian fetish? Is it possible for half-Asians to have Asian fetish? Is it possible for bisexuals to have Asian fetish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.204.104 (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Why are Caucasian men stereotyped as having this Asian fetish? Do people with Asian fetish generally have love-shyness? What causes Asian fetish? Do people hide Asian fetish? There are support groups for bi-questioning people. Are there support groups for Asian fetish questioning people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.214.46 (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedic article?

The article, as it stands, is highly inaccurate as an encyclopedic entry.

Firstly, the term “Asian fetish” does NOT refer to the sexual objectification of people of Asian descent. That definition seems to have come at a much later date in an attempt to dignify what IS an extremely offensive expression with terminology that dresses with the semblance of authentic “research”. The first sentence the entry bears the hallmarks and all the objectivity of a freshman Feminism 101 essay. It is POV as pure psychobabble!

“Asian Fetish” is an American woman’s derogatory term used against a Caucasian man who dates or marries a woman of East Asian decent. It first surfaced sometime in the very late 1980's or early 1990’s among Caucasian woman in Caifornia, possibly at the University of California, Berkley campus.

See http://www.modelminority.com/article113.html This article very specificaly says that it is American women who use the term and to whom it is appied.

The term also denigrates Asians by inference that it is un-natural for a white man to date or marry an Asian woman, persumably because she is inferior. As a matter of fact the slang usage of a valid psycological term "fetish" goes even further in dehumanizing Asian women.

The Britannica Concise Encyclopedia entry for fetishism gives, in part:

. . . (an) erotic attachment to an inanimate object or a nongenital body part whose real or fantasized presence is necessary for sexual gratification. See www.answers.com/topic/fetishism

Thus a very real human, a woman who happens to be Asian, is reduced to being an inanimate object and another very real human, a man who happens to be "white", is suffering from some sort of insanity, i.e. perversion.

The term, to me (my POV) seems to be simply a hateful attack and objectification of white men and Asian women. The term's imaging is that the all powerful, oppressive brute of a white man seizes by force the poor, defenseless Asian woman to use for his sick perversions (rape?). What an extremely simplistic and dare I say feminist view it is, but it is effective. Yes, the more I read about the term the more feminism seems to rear its head.

Personally I only recently heard the phrase, on an American TV program, and it was used in a derogatory way.

Might I suggest that the article be either rewriten to reflect what IS known about the term, rename it as suggested by *** Crotalus ***, or delete it all together. It is unworthy as it stands. GeeOh (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

GeeOh, this article has already been through AfD four times. One of them was initiated by me. Unless you can pile up some convincing evidence that the article should be deleted, I would not try. However, if you have any reliable sources to back up your claim and add to the article, it would be very helpful. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ - OK, I understand. But the areticle is inaccurate since the term is a derogatory term similar in vein to "Jungle Fever" which itself might just as easily be restylized as "Afican fetish". For example:
African fetish refers to sexual objectification of people of African descent, typically females, who are "objectified and valued not for who they are as people, but for their wonderfully dark skin or perceptions of their musical abilities."
That would be offensive to me as well. There is by the way another term, miscegenation which is far older and not, as I see it, hate slang. Although the word, at least in the U.S. seems to be applied only or predominantly to Black/White relationships.
Can anyone give a reason why the slang:hate/American origins of the term is not given in this entry or why that fact seems to be suppressed in favor of some pseudo-psyco-feminist jargon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeeOh (talk • contribs) 01:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't really call it a feminist term. And your objection is one of the reasons why this topic is so questionable and if the topic deserves an article at all, at least under this name. The most commonly used argument against deleting this article is that it is simply notable. However, like you said, the article itself can fail against Wikipedia:Coatrack and invite non-neutral POV. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I support GeeOh's suggestion: write about the term or rename the article. There is nothing wrong with having an article about a slang term, but that article should not be used to document the phenomenon the term refers to. Kaitenbushi (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ I agree that the term in and of itself is not a feminist term. However, the appearence of jargon at the begining of this encyclopedic entry would lead a reader to the mistaken belief that this American slang is somehow a genuine, and recognizable, psycological condition.
I still hold, although I cannot prove, that the definition of the term has a high feminist slant to it for the above reasons given.
True, Kaitenbushi, and I agree, there is, indeed nothing wrong with having an article about a slang term . . . as long as it is about the term being slang . . . and this term is slang and it is also used derogatorily, i.e. as an attack against a person or group of people intended to give harm or cause harm. BTW: It is THAT that makes it hate.
Since I have not been given a reason why the American slang origins of the term should not be given in this entry I am considering making the change myself. I will be abiding by the NPOV policy, as I can.

GeeOh (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It always felt like the article had some problems from the start, but I don't even know where to begin. I would try to get more opinions on this. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The opinion of someone is the opinion of someone who is notable, reliable, neutral, and/or accurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.180.253 (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Blacks and Asians

Hey now! This article is allll about white guys and asian chicks! What about us poor black dudes??? Pvegeta 13:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It happens, although it is not as common as white guys and Asian girls. I mean, I have an Asian cousin who married a black guy, and I saw that type of couple a bit at Legoland once with kids. It's the same reason that this article doesn't mention Asian dudes and white girls (or Asian dudes and black girls), although that happens too. I mean, my pastor is an Asian dude with a white girl, my dad's ex-roommate's brother is too, so is this guy who leads the Young Life Ministry at my church. The article lacks a lot of information.--69.234.220.41 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
At my school, which is predominantly Asian, we were hosting some performers from China, and the ladies were pretty eager to take photos with me, which was kinda cool...(and yes, they were attractive!) A fellow student who was an Asian-American female, remarked that it seemed like they never seen a black guy before! Just learn a language, get to know the culture and people...it shouldn't really matter what your racial background is.--Joel Lindley (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but it seems that black girls and asian guys seem to have the greatest disadvantage when it comes to attracting the opposite sex. --69.234.207.172 (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about that. If you are confident in yourself and meet different types of people, it shouldn't matter what race or gender you are.--Joel Lindley (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree it shouldn't matter. Sadly, some of the people I encounter disagree... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.180.195 (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that another thing is that it seems like black guys would rather have blond or black chicks than Asian ones. (Just judging by couples I've seen.)--69.234.210.7 (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't emcompass all black males, of course...--Joel Lindley (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I know it doesn't encompass all black males, just the majority that I've seen. Like I said before, my cousin married a black guy...--69.234.207.172 (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be something about men who want asian women. This isn't a matter of men who date and marry asian women but those that desire them. The used said that asian women often avoid black men. This is a huge factor.75.6.180.253 (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't say much for Asian women, if that generalization were true...--Joel Lindley (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose, and it wouldn't say much for black women if they avoid Asian men. --69.234.207.172 (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm at a loss of how black women entered a conversation on "Asian Fetish" (no matter the different takes on what encompasses the supposed "fetish") but I would think any man or woman who avoids another because of his or her race has issues.--Joel Lindley (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It was a response to your response to 75.6.180.253. Also he mentioned black men and black women followed. Given that this conversation is all about racial and sexual issues...--69.234.210.39 (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Well it seemed so random, suddenly changing to another topic. (Especially since "black" women were pointed out; not white, Hispanic, etc). And, User:69.234.210.39, I don't understand; black men and black women followed what or whom? This article is about "Asian Fetish" but suddenly we're talking about black women avoiding Asian men (which factors in with the gist of the article); and now black men and women following someone or something. Can you explain?--Joel Lindley (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I know it seemed kind of random to you but you basically said "it wouldn't say much for Asian women if they avoided black men" and I basically flipped it around in response. Anyway, what's special is about how Asian men and black women seem to have disadvantages when it comes to this kind of stuff. And Hispanic isn't really a race, Latinos can be white (Spanish are white) black, native American, and even Asian (mostly Chinese, Filipino, and Japanese).--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.210.39 (talk • contribs) Nov 2, 2008
As I mentioned above, meet people, mingle...and have confidence in yourself...it shouldn't matter what race or gender you are.--Joel Lindley (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
What about women who desire Asian men? I am a half-Asian guy and I wonder if that happens...--69.234.186.24 (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that never happens <sarcasm>. What kind of question is that, and what relevance does it have to the topic at hand?165.123.139.232 (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Basically, the article seems to talk only about white men with Asian fetish. What about black men who have it, and/or white or black ladies that do? Anyway, are you an Asian male? That would definitely affect your credibility in this.--69.234.207.172 (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

While the article seems much improved over older versions, I am surprised that it makes it specifically about WM/AF. Do the source articles really limit it to that? WP itself has Rice queen about M/AM. I'm also surprised by the lack of any reference to pornography. Excalibur Films.com, for example, has an "Asian Sex" category" and such DVD titles as "Yellow Fever" the box description of which begins "Don't worry, you don't need medical attention. The slanted-eyed sweethearts of Yellow Fever have left men breathless before." I wouldn't like to see such things overwhelm the article, but is there some reason why they shouldn't be mentioned? And incidentally, the DVD New Yellow Fever depicts several M/AF couples, one of which is BM/AF. 72.226.64.201 (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. So, you're saying that we should add stuff mentioning pornography? 69.234.203.255 (talk)

study source

The article says it used college students but the study says it used middle aged people. WUT?!YVNP (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the study used graduate students. or so I think... мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete or merge

No se hablar bien ingles. Cuando descubri este articulo, no pude creer que haya un aticulo tan racista en Wikipedia, Propongo que este atriculo sea borrado (delete) o fusionado (merge) con algun otro, por ejemlo con "Ethnicity of performers in pornography". --User:Elias Enoc (talk) 25 ago 2008

  • Please read the notes I left on your talkpage. The existence of an article on a term that could be considered derogratory does not mean that Wikipedia is racist; the article clearly states the prejorative nature of the term. Since you have continued to edit-war, I have blocked you temporarily. Black Kite 15:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

no asian porn?

It's very obvious that porn is a huge part of this.YVNP (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

New information

There's a story known as "Cindy's Torment" which describes a Chinese woman being raped. It was fairly controversial, had a very racial focus, and it was so offensive every trace of it on usenet was removed.It also has it's own article YVNP (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does it have it's own article if it is not notable? Maybe it can be merged with this article.--Joel Lindley (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
It does have it's own article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cindy%27s_Torment YVNP (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. I think I mistyped my response above.
My comment was actually supposed to state that "Cindy's Torment" isn't notable; however, if it goes along with this article, maybe the info (with reputable resources) can be merged with this article. However, "Cindy's Torment" comes off as a random article, and just because it has an Asian female, it is automatically assumed or slanted that it has to do with an Asian fetish. Now what if the female was black, Latin, or even white?
Credibility comes into play if random material is going to be used to fill this article.--Joel Lindley (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The story is fairly racial. It mentions her boss having a racial preference for Asian women for one. Plus the racial aspect was a part of the controversy that led to the usenet blackout.YVNP (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the article, unless I missed something, there is no indication of the race of her boss. Nor does it give any indication if the woman was "taken" against her will. Too, did the Asian woman have a preference of her own? Was this incident fact or fiction? Moreover, I'm not aware of this "usenet blackout," as I'm sure many casual readers were/are not aware of how this alleged "Asian fetishism" was the cause of this "blackout."--Joel Lindley (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
It was a fictional story. It can be found here http://xahlee.org/p/cindys_torment.html YVNP (talk) 08:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV violation

hold on...why does it say in the article something like that western girls are better than azns - "ugly men can't date strong, pretty, determined, etc etc western women, so they stick with asians" 'scuse me? the sentence seriously needs to be flipped around. i smell racism here. you know, i hate those americans who think they're better than anyone else. the only ones they're fooling are their juggling wolves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.145.75 (talk) 05:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That sounds ridiculous. I mean, there are good-looking Asian girls, and I don't think that the white guys who end up with Asians are all ugly.--69.234.186.75 (talk)
Having read the article pointed to by the citation I agree that this particular line should be removed. The quote is not from an encyclodedic source - it's from the ex-girlfriend of the journalist who wrote the article. Shinigami27 (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why no Black Fetishism section?

If we are bold enough to have an "asian fetishism" section then we should also add the popular "black fetishism" section as well. It is only fair. Ken Watanabe (talk) 13:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Jungle fever BillyTFried (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget white fetishism, Asian or black women who only date white men, etc. This article is very derisive towards Asian Women, but I suppose the authors would characterize female white fetishists as women who can only have sex with those they view as superior? Give me a break. Can't we all just get along? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.235.238 (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In all honesty this whole section should be deleted. I agree that this article seems very biased. Ken Watanabe (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

John and Yoko picture

That picture sums up the inaccuracy of this article; John Lennon was not an 'asian fetishist' nder the article's definition, with all the negative connotations that this article has associated with it, he said that what first attracted him to Yoko was her art exhibition where she put a £100 price tag on an apple. Secondly he had been married and had a child with a white woman previously, and thirdly the testimony from his those close to him during his primal therapy say that he called 'Yoko' mother and after the birth of their son it was John who took the submissive role of house husband. However, his affair with May Pang would suggest that he was attracted to Asians but not for the reasons stated in the article, rather the real reasons that everyone with the implied sexual deviance is attracted to asians; a personal aesthetic preference. Call me naiive, but I doubt that the lead singer in the most popular band OF ALL TIME would be too unattractive to get a sassy, confident, white woman who is strong minded enough to get off with another girl to impress a load of guys or occupy someone's bed all night in the hope that the gentleman will return and shag them.

Furthermore, the Austrailian article points as much to the physical differences that one might prefer as it does to the idea of cultural differences and inability for the men to get a white partner yet this 'encyclopedic' article sidelines this argument, crucially this is the determining argument used to those who are 'Asian fetishists'; in other words the primary sources. 91.104.110.244 (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the John Lennon photo was simply because this article is racist bullshit. It is an attempt to stigmatize any and all interracial couples, hence the smearing of Lennon and Ono. Par for the course in this crappy article. Soda80 (talk) 03:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section Removed

  1. Racism - Citation doesn't support the text or claims made. Original research.
  2. American phenomenon - No citation
    Humorously enough, there is a warning at the top of the page stating that "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page." This paragraph was simply stating the obvious but of course you deleted. Soda80 (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    It has no citations. The tag is not article content, you added unsourced opinion as article content.--Crossmr (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. Asian origins - the first two citations seem to fail WP:V a random free page on a university server and something written by "dave in phoenix" fail the policy. Unless someone can demonstrate that either of them are published and recognized experts in the field. The register source has nothing to do with the controversy and is instead citing some random related fact.
  4. Stigmatization - The citation supports that someone from a minority group made a comment about interracial/asian dating. It doesn't support any of the other text or claims made there.
    People are free to add more evidence!!! Must one person's edits achieve perfection? This is collaborative. Can you please not delete ALL edits IMMEDIATELY and allow other users to edit and see if the content is developed??? Soda80 (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    I'm under no obligation to do that. See WP:V under burden of evidence. You want to add point of view material to an article you need to provide appropriate citation.--Crossmr (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
    YOU are not under obligation, but please allow other wikipedians to contribute. You are essentially dominating the article's content and preventing any editing process. Nobody aksed you to fill in citations. But my point is that the critical views of this offensive and racist term (and unscientific -- misuse of the word "fetish" which technically means an object) are wholly lacking in the article. 96.231.93.231 (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  5. Clash of cultures - The first citation is a blog. Fails WP:V. As for the second sentence that opinion doesn't seem to be present, so someone will have to point out exactly where its hiding, but its a tough criticism since the first half can't be used.
    Alright, I removed this section.Soda80 (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  6. Exogamy - I don't see how this is remotely a criticism.
    Oh really?? "those who prefer to date partners from other ethnic groups may in fact be acting in the more healthy manner, while those who exclusively date individuals from within their own ethnic group may be the ones expressing unhealthy tendencies." Interracial relationships are known as exogamy -- dating outside the group. The Asian Fetish claim is that non-Asians who state Asians are abnormal fetishists, but exogamy is a very common human phenomena in anthropology. The point is just because you don't get it, doesn't ,mean you should delete it Soda80 (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    Again you're stating people who are asian fetishist display healthier dating patterns. How is that a criticism of asian fetishism. It isn't. it is saying it is a good thing. you've done nothing to demonstrate this is a criticism. Its a defense for the situation. We already know that some people think asian fetishism is bad that is included above.--Crossmr (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
That's not what I am saying. I am saying that people who date interracially, including Asian and non-Asian -- not the racist term you uses -- are exhibiting exogamy, which is a typical pattern. The problem is, you misunderstood my point, and delete first simply because you didn't get it. 96.231.93.231 (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
So what? Exogamy is shown to be a good thing as it increases genetic diversity. You've done nothing to indicate any criticism.--Crossmr (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing in any of this text that would indicate its a valid criticism section and on top of that, wikipedia is moving away from criticism sections and good articles shouldn't contain them.--Crossmr (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have significantly revised and reduced the content per your remarks but have some objections: First, you incorrectly cite WP:V to refute opinions. There is nothing in WP:V that says that opinions must be "experts" -- I think you might want to go to Citizendium if you want "experts" only. Second, other than your claim that Wikipedia is "moving away from" Critism sections, there seems to be no official policy banning them. Your perception of a trend is subjective and seems ad hoc. Perhaps there is another way than a Criticism section to address the issue that "Asian Fetish" is itself a racist stereotype? If you have suggestions for better integration, please provide. Essentially you are reducing all of the content of this page to almost nothing. People come to Wikipedia to learn about controversies, not to encounter minimalist fragments of what used to be developing articles. Also, Wikipedia clearly encourages citations for as much as possible. But the policy definitely is NOT that you must delete EVERYTHING that is uncited IMMEDIATELY. Wikipedia is collaborative, and citations for articles is a process. But there won't be any process if you delete everything within hours. Like I said, users can and will provide more references and refine, develop and, yes, delete my contributions. But you seem to be policing this content and deleting anything new that is added, essentially preventing any possible development to this article. The issues of racism involved in the term Asian Fetish is a real one, and other users can develop and contribute to it. This article was in fact better two years ago than it is now, since now it is reduced to almost nothing and simply doesn't mention controversies. Can you provide an alternative way to include these controversies other than simply deleting? Soda80 (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
If you want to add point of view material provide citations.
I did provide citations -- about a dozen -- which you dismissed in various fashions as "non-expert". You are being unreasonable. I tried to accomodate your concerns and revise the material, to no avail. After dismissing all my citations, now you ask for citations. 96.231.93.231 (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I dismissed 2 citations as being self-published and no indication that they came from experts on the subject. Not all of them. the other ones I dismissed as not supporting the text being added.--Crossmr (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
No one is under any obligation to leave unsourced material in a controversial article. If you can't go out and find sources for material without it being in the article that can't be helped. You can just as easily google for content with the material in or out of the article. If someone reads this talk discussion and wants to help find citations they can look in the history of the article. 2 of the sources being used were self-published sources, WP:V and WP:RS state that for self-published sources who are not the subject you can only use them if they are published and recognized experts in the field. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published 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. As for revising the section, 2 of the sections you restored you made no changes. The sources still don't support the text. You reduced the exogamy section, but I still can't see anything in there that says asian fetishism is wrong. it still only states that people who are asian fetishist display better dating behaviour. If you want to restore this text you need to provide appropriate citations. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.--Crossmr (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Your last statement is simply false. The Verifiability warning posted on Wiki pages states: "This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. " Note that is doesn't does not state, "This article will be deleted immmediately until it is written in a single edit with full citations". Essentailly you are making your own standard, since that is not what the standard warning states. Second, the racist aspect of the term is entirely lacking in this article. Wikipedia would not and does not have an article about "jungle fever" or some other racist stereotype and leave it totally devoid of comment about possible criticisms. It is natural that controversies in the real world are acknowledged in some fashion. I asked you for alternative means but you provide none. Essentially you simply delete all "critical" contributions and leave it 100% POV in favor of "Asian fetishism" as an idea, despite this being 1) racist and offensive to many people 2) totally unscientific (the Columbia study which disproves the term is dropped in with no explanation) and 3) not referenced anywhere other than in subcultures on the internet. This article is currently filled with mostly unsourced points of view in favor of the term. I simply am trying to balance the article to show that the term is under dispute. In its present form, it is entirely POV, and that is obviously against Wikipedia policy. To reiterate: This article is essentially 100% in favor of the term Asian Fetish as a legitimate phenomenon. The problem for you is, it is not an acceptable term, not well-known, and not undisputed. Many people consider it racist, and in fact, even proponents do not use this word in conversation around mixed couples, since it would seem racist. Yet you persist in banning all critical views from the article. Why? Are you personally in favor of this article? Your edits seem very biased. How are you held accountable for upholding NPOV? Soda80 (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
My last statement is taken directly from WP:V under burden of evidence which is a binding policy for all edits. You're attempting to restore contested material without appropriate citation. The material you are adding violates WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. I've made no standard. The community decided on that standard. Edit warring will not get it kept in the article. I provided you no alternative method because the text you want to include isn't properly sourced and has no place in the article until it is. NPOV can only be maintained by adding content that is properly sourced frm a reliable source. You have failed to do that, with instead including sources which don't support the editorializing and opinion you're giving in the sections you're trying to add. It is a blatant violation of WP:OR as you're trying to put forth opinions, theories, etc not supported by a reliable source. As for the article being mostly unsourced points of view, which article are you looking at? I see a citation at the end of almost every sentence in this article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
The citations for the rest of the article are merely pointing to opinions, but they are not put into context, or contrasted with any other opinions, and are presented as fact. Such as "Practices of marrying mail-order brides from Asian countries is also sustained by sexual stereotypes of Asian women" Sure there is a citation but it is written like it is a fact, not someone's opinion. The article as stands now is an opinion piece. This is shoddy stuff. 23:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The last time you were an active editor you tried to push these same criticisms into the article [4]. They weren't accepted then, they're not accepted now.--Crossmr (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I think you are biased and unwilling to allow any sections to this article that are critical of a very controversial topic. The article itself is under dispute, and yet the article is written entirely from a single POV. I asked you for help in ways to balance it but you simply revert and revert. I hope to bring in other people to clean up a deeply flawed and extremely POV article. Soda80 (talk) 23:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
My only bias is in insisting that content added to articles follows WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. If you have a problem with something in the article feel free to bring it up. If you feel there is a problem with a citation it isn't license to add more problem content to the article. That does not make it better. You've apparently had over 2 years to find proper citations for the content you're trying to put in the article and you've failed to do so. I can't see how putting it in to the article is going to somehow help you find citations. The word criticism in itself adds POV. Combining that with content that is opinion and not supported by any citations you're trying to use with them, creates more POV. It does not create balance. NPOV is not balance, NPOV is adequate coverage given to all non-trivial viewpoints in relation to the coverage given to them by reliable sources. If you want to demonstrate your viewpoint is non-trivial find appropriate citations.--Crossmr (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion that Columbia Study section be removed - hardly a scholarly study, published in A MAGAZINE, the experiment is poorly designed and given the nature of the study, it is hard to believe that without well thought out methods for controlling in response bias that social desirability response bias would not have played into peoples' responses. 06:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki fighter99 (talk • contribs)
That study was not published in a magazine. It was discussed in a magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talk • contribs) 12:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
It does not matter where the Columbia Study was published, OR discussed, actually. The ultimate source is utterly credible: Columbia University. You simply cannot get a more credible, pristine source. If Harvard or Yale do a study, and it is published in a blog, or magazine, does that make the source unreliable? Of course it doesn't. To say that the Columbia Study is not credible is irrational. Computer1200 (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have tried to clean this up, but User:Tkguy is just reverting everything. I see this has been a problem in the past - see, for example, [5]. Can anyone else help? I don't want to get into a protracted war with Tkguy, who clearly is only interested in this article and has obvious issues of ownership. --hippo43 (talk) 05:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hippo43, I will be checking in daily. If you do the same, and others join in, it will help. I have also seen how TKguy is trying to own this article. For the sake of Wikipedia integrity, and reputation, this has got to stop with this article. It would be good for us to begin scouring references, and making sure that what is said can be sufficiently substantiated by the sources. As it stands, there are a number of paragraphs that are dubious at best.Computer1200 (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The exceptional claim of "Asian Fetish" vis a vis Wikipedia Guidelines

This article (Asian Fetish), is making an exceptional claim directly about white men, but also indirectly about all non-Asian men, and also about Asian women, implying that Asian women who have interest in non-Asian men are naive enough, and weak enough, to accept odd, diseased men as partners. Therefore: the burden to provide exceptionally credible sources is imperative upon those who are making the claim that "Asian fetish" is widespread, and more than just simple attraction.

The following is from the Wikipedia Red Flag information of the Verifiability section[6]:

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:[7]

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

No longer should anything in this article be accepted unless highly credible sources are used.
Check [WIKIPEDIA:SOURCES] [8] for more information.Computer1200 (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Computer, could you clarify what you think the exceptional claim is that the current version is making? I'm not sure I understand your vew on this, so if you could say really simply what the exceptional claim is, it would help. thanks. --hippo43 (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hippo, the article is making an exceptional claim by focusing, in a racist way, directly on White American men throughout the article, eventhough, at this time, the definition says "non-Asians." But even this makes a racially derogatory statement. it implies that Asian men cannot be unbalanced and unhealthy toward Asian women, just like other men can. Are all Asian men immune to obsessive, unhealthy interest in Asian women? I would say no.
Meanwhile, the article focuses directly in a racist way on White American men by recounting amorphous past events in White American past, nonchalantly linking them directly to unsubstantiated claims in the present about said "Asian Fetish" — eventhough there is no proof that these two areas are actually connected. It is a guess. All of this makes the article a highly volatile, sensational, and inflammatory issue. Wikipedia defines this as an "exceptional claim," which requires exceptionally credible sources. Hope that helps.Computer1200 (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I think I see what you're getting at, and I definitely see some serious problems with the article. However, I'm not sure that there is an 'exceptional claim' here - I'm still not clear exactly what claim you think is being made. For me, the fact that there is no referenced definition is a big issue, as is the emphasis on American stereotypes of Asian women, though a US bias is a common problem for many Wikipedia articles. However, I don't think this is specifically referring to white men, as opposed to American culture in general. Another issue is whether this article actually deals with 'Asian fetish' meaning the fetishising of Asian women or 'Asian fetish' as just a derogatory term for some men's preferences.
If 'Asian fetish' in either sense is a widely reported and discussed term among reliable sources, then the article should be included. Currently, I'm not convinced that is the case. For me, most of the current 'History & usage' section probably belongs somewhere like here - Stereotypes_of_East_Asians_in_the_United_States#Stereotypes_of_Asian_women, though these stereotypes also exist outside the USA. This section doesn't directly address the meaning or use of the term 'Asian fetish'.
Clearly, there are people of all races, mostly men, who fetishise Asian women. This is a different matter from some men simply finding Asian women attractive. There is also, no doubt, fetishising of women of all races, in each case influenced by stereotypes of these women. In various societies, there are certainly stereotypes of black women, for example, quite possibly different stereotypes in different countries. Whether some non-Asian men's fetishising of East Asian women, based on their various stereotypes, is worthy of an article is open to debate. I see very little of the current material as supporting such an article.
If 'Asian fetish' is just a derogatory term used to describe the behaviour or preferences of some men, rather than a fetish per se, then it isn't currently referenced as such in the article. I'm open to more discussion, but at the moment, I can't see what value this article brings to Wikipedia. Some of the current wording would be useful elsewhere, but I'd probably support deleting the article unless better material is found. --hippo43 (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Part of what I am getting at references my comments at the top of the discussion page. If we do not address these issues ( 1-frequency of said "asian fetish" as a negative, clinical condition, and 2- differentiation between attraction and obsession) then what we are left with in this article is a sensational, exceptional claim that White (or non-Asian) American men are diseased and unbalanced when they have relationships with Asian women. This is racial, irrational, and unacceptable — and exceptional. My point is that if the article stands as it is, we have to have highly credible sources to verify these claims.
However, If we make it clear that 1- "Asian Fetish" is a slang term to mean many things (therefore one definition is impossible); 2- The frequency of the negative kind of reference to the term here in the article is very rare; and 3- we make it very clear that the word "fetish" is a clinical, scientific term that implies dementia, and that most of the time, the slang term is used to mean simple attraction to Asian women, then what we have is something that might be more balanced. BUT, as you say, the article should probably not be in Wikipedia because it is a slang term. You are exactly right that there is not one credible reference to a definition of the term. And this is certainly problematic.Computer1200 (talk) 03:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Problematic or bogus references in the article "Asian Fetish"

Please list sources below that are not in accordance with Wiki standards related to making exceptional claims.

+++++

1. Walsh, Joan. San Francisco Examiner. Asian Women, Caucasian Men modelminority.com (2002-04-22)

This is a DEAD LINK. I have removed all references to this link. Also, Modelminority.com does not meet these specifications for a highly credible source in light of the exceptional nature of the article's claim. Modelminority.com is basically a blog, and a highly biased one at that.Computer1200 (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The definition

I changed the definition of "Asian Fetish" in the first paragraph to be more broad. If we do not delete the article (which is best, because this is a slang term), then we should make the definition as broad as possible as to include as many meanings as possible. There are many different ways this term is used, and all should be represented in a definition.Computer1200 (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Asians might use the term, and asians might have the fetish too, though I suppose a source would be needed for that. And perhaps ironically, a source IS needed for "There is no source for an exact definition of this term." Шизомби (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind the first sentence, but for me, "There is no source for an exact definition of this term." is really unencyclopaedic and should go. A citation is needed for the existence of the slang term or for the fetish itself. At the moment we have neither. If we can't find good references soon, I'd support deleting the article. --hippo43 (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I will remove the sentence. And I do support removal of the whole article if we cannot find good references for a definition.Computer1200 (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The issue has been around for a very long time (just skim the archives). There haven't been any good references for the definition of this term. If we can't even define the term with a reference, then we can't have an entire article on it. Teji (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Darrell Hamamoto

I moved the citations on "porn" to the Hamamoto article. The whole issue can be expanded there--Work permit (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

merged the article

I merged the article, we can clean up from here.--Work permit (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Computer1200 (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Kudos to Work Permit for doing a good job making this article much better. There are parts of it that I would change, and it still needs work. Nonetheless it is much more balanced from my perspective. We are not trying to win a battle here; we are just trying to make sure all sides have been covered fairly. This version now sheds light on the issue in a more academic, dispassionate way, rather than use the issue to bash a certain group of people. I am going to daily check in to make sure it stays that way, and I hope others do the same. LET'S MAKE SURE IT STAYS BALANCED.

Globalize

A user tagged the article with no discussion on the talk page. I removed the tag and added this section for anyones benefit if they wish to add the tag back and explain what is needed.--Work permit (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It's generally desirable to add a talk page comment along with a tag, but I don't believe it's mandatory. In this case, the content of the tag "The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject." is pretty obviously true and the meaning is quite clear, so it's not quite fair to call it a "drive by tag" or claim an explanation is needed. Шизомби (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
In which way? From what I see, the sources all speak about preference of American men for Asian women. Do you believe the phenomenon applies to other men, and the wording should refelect that? Or do you believe the article should be more explicit that this is about American men?--Work permit (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The lead does not define the terms as "attraction toward Asian women by American men", and nor do any of the sources used to support the definitions, as far as I can see. Yet the article focuses almost exclusively on American history, American steretypes etc. Hence the globalize tag. --hippo43 (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Strangely enough there are other countries in the western world where this concept might exist. One of the sources specifically mentions australia for example.--Crossmr (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Computer1200 (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC) It is of course true that others besides Americans (both male and female, of many racial backgrounds, from many different places) can experience a special attraction for Asians. Indeed, Asians themselves can also be attracted only to their own race — for whatever reason. This can also be considered a kind of special attraction. The point is that we are definitely focusing on the United States, and therefore the tag should remain until we include other expressions of this kind of attraction, including Asian for Asian. I know white men who have a special attraction for blondes; IE: same-race attraction, just a different appearance. This can also happen between two Asians, and it can also become unbalanced and obsessive, just as it can with any other attraction.

Ok, so lets create a consensus. Can the sources cited can be generalized to the entire world? Or they are restricted to the US? For example, is the Columbia University study an "American" study, or does it apply to Europeans as well? Are the preferences for Asian women as sex partners by many American military forces a generalization of all Non-Asian men? --Work permit (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We have one source which mentions australia, so we know it exists elsewhere. We need to go out and find the sources to talk about other areas of the world. it would be strange if we couldn't find one article from same England, Canada, other parts of europe, etc that even mention this.--Crossmr (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much agree with Hippo43, Crossmr, Computer1200 on this point. Are there non-Americans studying it as an American phenomenon? Are there non-Americans who self-identify or are labeled as having it? There's no reason to imagine it's a solely or primarily American thing, although it's possible, I suppose, that there may not be sources for that. Anyhow, I appreciate the efforts to improve the article, which has always been a problematic one. Шизомби (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

White women with asian fetish?

As unlikely as it may seem to some there actually are some; I know at least one white woman with it. I think the article should mention this if anybody can find any references. In a sense the article is probably unintentionally being sexist right now, it only covers one type of asian fetish.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, this should be included ... if there are references. --hippo43 (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Good luck finding that LOL! (Now Hippo43 starts an *exhaustive* search of the internet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.111.237.76 (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge from User:Saranghae honey's sandbox

I liked these revisions, so I merged them into the history of this article, which gives GFDL-required attribution. The difference between this version and the former version is seen in this diff.[9] Cool Hand Luke 05:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't like the changes. removed a the mail-order bride section for no reason. Still presents the Fisman opinionated article as a study. The WP:LEAD is pushing a POV. White men are not the only ones who can have an asian fetish. But you already added it anyway. 05:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkguy (talk • contribs)
Didn't we discuss WP:FRINGE already? They should not be brought back without reliable sources. миражinred (speak, my child...) 23:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
As you can see User:Crossmr the mail-order bride section was removed without reasons initially. And then it was removed because of the WP:FRINGE but there were multiple sources. the WP:FRINGE was for the yale newspaper source. The other sources are not the yale newspaper so you need to stop removing valid entries backed by valid source until you can discredit them. Otherwise you are WP:OWNing this article. This is consistent with the 5 failed deletion attempts on this article. Tkguy (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually it was removed with a reason. [10]. The source was questioned.--Crossmr (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The argument was made by a person using an ip address to edit the page. So the argument can't be taken seriously. So therefore your argument can't be taken seriously. But I have to admit I don't have a direct quote from the source to prove that it's not a valid source. and you don't either so you really can't just write it off with 100% certainty unless of course you are biased. But still I removed the source and added a new source. so now you have to discredit the two remaining sources. If you choose to remove this valid entry then you are WP:EWing and I will report you. Tkguy (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the history you'll see that the IP is very likely computer1200 who accidentally logged out as within a couple minutes he made 4 more edits to the article. Whether its an IP or not, the article was made that the source doesn't support it. As for proving it WP:V under burden of proof, you want to include the material, you need to prove it, not the other way around. Threats don't get your material kept in the article. And if you notice below an editor raised issues with the text of the mail order bride bit with or without source back in February.--Crossmr (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I did put in the quote. but like you, somebody deleted the quote.
Phoebe Eng acknowledges that Asian fetish is what largely driving the mail-order bride industry in America. She wrote the following,
Sheridan Prasso devotes a whole section on mail-order brides in her "The Asian Mystique: Dragon Ladies, Geisha Girls, & Our Fantasies of the Exotic Orient"

Tkguy (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how either of those quotes supports what you're trying to insert. Both of those are simply stating a fact. The first doesn't even mention that they are asian wives, nor does it mention anything about stereotypes. the second one simply lists some statistics on the amount of websites and couples who get married, but again doesn't say anything about what drives those. Unless you're leaving out parts of the quotes, there is nothing there that supports that text at all.--Crossmr (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Sheridan Prasso book is titled "The Asian Mystique" because it's dealing with the effects of stereotypes that the western world have to towards asian females.
Phoebe Eng included this entry in her book in a section titled "Asian Women = SEX".
Nobody writes an entire book on Asian fetish and use the term Asian fetish in every sentence. Apparently that is what you are claiming is needed. The Salon Article does not even use the word fetish. Tkguy (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make the claim that the mail order bride business is supported by stereotypes you need a clear citation stating exactly that, not your conjecture. Neither of those say the industry is supported by it, they simply list some facts without stating any opinion about it.--Crossmr (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
To write that a book titled "The Asian Mystique: Dragon Ladies, Geisha Girls, & Our Fantasies of the Exotic Orient" that includes am entire section on mail-order brides does not intended to make the connection between it and the stereotypes that people have of asian females, means that you have no intention of having a constructive discussion. In books that spans 100's of pages, the author will not use the term Asian fetish, stereotypes, in every sentence. That would be a horrible book. So you are pretty much saying only short magazine articles are allowed on this article. You have no point. And I find it interesting how you keep trying to come up with completely different issues you have with my entries. Tkguy (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Your assumptions of bad faith aside, many conclusions, theories, etc may be put forth in a book. If there is an entire section on mail-order brides, provide some text that explicitly supports the claim you're trying to make. The only thing you've quoted is a short fact.--Crossmr (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asian_fetish/Archive_14&oldid=1074050776"