# Talk:Charlie Chan

...from Charles Chan (father of Jackie Chan, non-fictitious).

But who the hell knows who Charles Chan is? And, even supposing they knew who he was, why would they look for him under the diminutive Charlie?
Nuttyskin 01:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The evaluative commentary in this article is particularly bad, and could use a rewrite. Kellen T 12:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Not disagreeing, but could you be more specific?
Tahrlis 16:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no sources other than a relatively POV piece (if something is said to be "too politically correct" then it's pretty POV), it needs more sources.  --ColourBurst 18:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Kellen. A semi-rewrite would be a plus. I didn't come to this page to read about the controversy, and that's what 2/3 this article is about (and reads as a little repetitive). I want to know about the character. There's not too much there and some of it is uninteresting. GregJ77 14:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The most recent edits seems to be nothing but a heavy injection of a POV, and in my opinion, do not contribute to the Charlie Chan article in any particular way. Inserting the word "racist" in every other sentence is hardly a contribution. Perhaps a seperate section detailing the history of the controversy would be appropriate. Twalls 23:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is also POV on the other side. I deleted comments that Charlie Chan shined like a "beacon" and was not negative for Asian Americans. I also deleted the "fact" (no citation) that the DVDs received a good response.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.240.239 (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC) 

Can I get a ruling on how the concept of "racist" should be applied for future use?
Further, if such "commentary" is considered too POV, there are at least a few lines in the current version that should also be subject to the same review:
"Whether the Chan films of the 1930s and '40s are racially offensive is a matter of personal judgment. But their treatment of Chan was undoubtedly less negative than Hollywood portrayals of other ethnic minorities at the time. Chan, though quaint in his speech and manner, was both the moral and intellectual equal, if not superior, of white characters in the film."
FIRST:
"Whether the Chan films of the 1930s and '40s are racially offensive is a matter of personal judgment."
So is racism altogether a matter of personal judgment only?
IF so, fine.
BUT, the current text goes on to offer a POV: "But their treatment of Chan was undoubtedly less negative than Hollywood portrayals of other ethnic minorities at the time."
Says who? Who's making this judgment? Sounds like a POV, and should be deleted from the entry.
SECOND, the current version also has the line: "Chan, though quaint in his speech and manner, was both the moral and intellectual equal, if not superior, of white characters in the film."
This also sounds like a judgment and a POV. I actually think this sentence is fine, but if it's allowed, there should be another sentence offering a contrary POV, which is to say that while Chan is portrayed with high intelligence and morality, he is also portrayed in caricature, and it is these caricatures that has at least as much of an affect on the audience as his intelligence and morality.
My point is if you allow one POV, you have to allow another.
FINALLY,
There ought to be a larger subsection on the controversial aspect of Charlie Chan. As an Asian American, I can tell you that MOST Asian Americans find Charlie Chan offensive. It isn't simply a matter of POV or of a fringe advocacy group that is making such a claim.
Also, my paragraph on Jessica Hagedorn's book, "Charlie Chan is Dead" ought to be included. It's a fact and a reference, and not a point of view. Edmundlee 17:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

On other pages where there is some disagreement over racism and sexism, editors have agreed to have attributions used.  An example would be, "Edmundlee, a Wikipedia editor charged that the Charlie Chan stories were racist.<ref>[Citation]</ref>" (where Edmundlee is replaced with somebody more notable than you or I).  There is a long discussion of this on Talk:Ann Coulter. Rkevins82 20:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there are some other POVs in the existing article which could be taken out. You point out some very good examples as well as good material for the controversy section, including the Hagedorn book. The issue I had was with such bold statements early on like - "his portrayal is, in fact, racist." It certainly could be pointed out that many people view the character's portrayal in similar terms, but I think it would fit better in the controversy section. Cheers, Twalls 00:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
To add on to that - I agree that most Asian Americans find Charlie Chan offensive. I was always under the assumption he was a very controversial character. Should this not be included in the introduction to the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.240.239 (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 

Harvey Keitel, who plays Mr. White in the movie, mentions Charlie Chan in the movie. Michael Madsen 20:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.165.152 (talk • contribs) 

... is the most offensive content in this article.
Aside from continuing the Hollywood practice of pretending that Asian males don't exist -- except as caricatures and gangsters -- they are asking, of all people, the most whitewashed Chinese actor to ever appear on the big screen to play a character that is already perceived as playing into white perceptions of Chinese. Go away Lucy Liu, we don't need any more orange chicken.

The extent of that content is the announcement of a planned role. What's so offensive about that? And what makes you think she should "go away"? She's a popular actress; you might as well tell moviegoers to stop liking her. Twalls 18:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added the names of the six novels (it seemed to me as though the original novels were buried under the information about the films, which seemed a little disrespectful to the character's creator).  I know there's at least one more that was written under license by Dennis Lynds, and there may be others.  Accounting4Taste 22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed three non-free images from this article, per WP:Non-free images. These images fail to meet one of the criteria for use of non-free images, specifically: 
Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
Please do not put the images back on the page unless and until their Free Use Rationales are re-written to indicate in what way their presence "significantly enhances readers' understanding of the topic". Thanks. Ricardiana (talk) 23:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Chan is Missing is a bit of a strange inclusion; it has some relevance, but it's not a Charlie Chan film.  More relevant, though I don't know if it belongs in the filmography or somewhere else in the article, is Mr. Moto's Gamble (1938), which started off as a Chan film and in a fictional crossover does have Keye Luke in a supporting role playing "Number One Son" Lee Chan. Шизомби (talk) 06:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Chan is Missing isn't even exactly a spoof, certainly not a traditional parody film.  I haven't seen the whole thing.  I'll see if I can dig up some other reference on it, time permitting.  http://charliechanfamily.tripod.com/id179.html has info on a Mexican/Cuban Charlie Chan movie, El Monstruo en la Sombra AKA The Monster in the Shadows!  Google Books turns up a number of references to it, mostly in Spanish-language, though English references include Horror and science fiction films: a checklist‎ by Donald C. Willis, Mexican cinema‎ by Paulo Antonio Paranaguá, The Mexican filmography: 1916 through 2001‎
by David E. Wilt.  Willis I can check. Шизомби (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be great. Thanks! Ricardiana (talk)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charlie Chan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I believe I've seen this before and that it was relisted? I don't know, but I felt that I would review it now (as I did look at the page a while back). I hope you don't mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course not. Thank you. Ricardiana (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


### Criterion 1: well-written
Lead
The lead is one paragraph. MoS recommends at least 2-3 for a 40k page. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Books
Sentences are, for the most part, precise. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Ricardiana (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
"reading of" There is no statement what he was reading - newspaper, book, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Added. Ricardiana (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
"In the text" - "text" sounds a little too dry for a novel. In the story? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Changed to "in the novel." Ricardiana (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
"description of Chan allows" - Perhaps this should be "allowed" as per the preceding tense use. The paragraph and the section suddenly switches to present tense. This would cause problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Changed preceding tense. Ricardiana (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
"argues that the books" - There is only one mention of a book at this time. Perhaps other books should be mentioned? Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Added. Ricardiana (talk) 02:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Films
"A year later Universal Pictures followed with" Should be "followed the film with" in order to be more clear. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Added. Ricardiana (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
"transformed at the last minute into a Mr. Moto film" It would help to mention a little about the Moto films (i.e., rivals? contemporaries? etc). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Added. Ricardiana (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
"even in the forties" This would seem to make more sense as just "in the forties". The "even" suggests a tone of surprise that does not seem justified without further explanation. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This was a response to a question someone was asking a long time ago now. I've re-worded it. Ricardiana (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Controversy and criticism
The blockquote by "Critic Michael Brodhead" might not be long enough to warrant being placed in blockquotes. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Unblocked. Ricardiana (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
"Others argue that Chan" It would help to list some names instead of the citations without attributions. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Added some names (I put Huang Guiyou's family name first per Chinese style, although I also list her as Huang, Guiyou [American-style] in the bib., for consistency in bib. formatting). Ricardiana (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


### Criterion 2: factually accurate and verifiable
Comics and games
This section lacks citations on two of the sections. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I know. Someone keeps adding this info in, and I just can't find any sources to which to cite it. Ricardiana (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I've made the uncited sections invisible for now. I've looked many times and scoured every source I can think of and can't find any support. Of course, now the section is tiny. Suggestions? Ricardiana (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
What is it you need citations for that's being discussed above? Шизомби (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The comics and games section. Ottava has helpfully pointed to a few refs. Ricardiana (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Notes
You mix references and notes together. You might want to find a page that separates into two sections so you could have explanatory footnotes divided off. The Lucy poems now uses this function.
Will take a look. I see Lucy got FA - congratulations! Ricardiana (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I see a problem with using this style, which is that to do it you need a Notes + References + Bibliography section. However, this article already has a bib., the list of books featuring Chan. What do you suggest? Works Cited instead of a (second) bib.? Ricardiana (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


### Criterion 3: broad in its coverage
 It appears to fit this criteria. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


### Criterion 4: neutral
 It appears to fit this criteria to the best of my knowledge on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

One would think.... I don't doubt someone will find it deeply offensive somewhere down the line. However, I'm glad you think it's okay. Ricardiana (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


### Criterion 5: stable
 I do not see any possibility of there being an edit war or any destabilization of the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


### Criterion 6: illustrated, if possible, by images
 Images appear to check out. One non-free image seems to be completely appropriate and rationale is accepted. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if there is any more detail about what the critics mean by that?  From what's in the article at the moment, they seem to be saying he's asexual because he is fat.  Шизомби (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As quoted in the articles, those critics who argue that CC is portrayed as asexual argue this because (a) of the way CC is portrayed physically and (b) the fact that, unlike white male characters, CC doesn't exhibit interest in women, nor receives such interest. Ricardiana (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
If they're saying fat=asexual, that's a bit bigoted.  And his children weren't fat, and I seem to recall at least one of his sons having a love interest, so some broad statement about Asian men being fat and asexual was not being made.  I don't recall what sort of interest Chan might have exhibited in women, particularly since he was married, and the majority of the films being shot during the Hays Code era, having him have wandering eyes or worse might have been more controversial.  Don't recall how he was regarded by women either; one wishes their criticism had examples, otherwise, it's hard to seriously credit.  I can't say I recall the white characters being particularly sexual either.  I don't know about the audience for the books, but the films were family movies, weren't they? Шизомби (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I agree with what these particular critics are saying, either (although they are mostly talking about the books, which can be pretty different from the movies). But now you know what they say, which is the point of encyclopedic knowledge! Best, Ricardiana (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed! :-)  But I thought the modern critics were mainly of the movies, not the books? Шизомби (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The ones that I included in the "Books" section are critics who are only talking about the books. Ricardiana (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it's worth noting in this context that, at the time the books were written, there was a generally-held convention of detective fiction that there should be no "romance" (or, I suppose, sexuality) in detective fiction.  See, for example, S. S. Van Dine's "Twenty Rules for Writing Detective Fiction" from 1928, where #3 is "There must be no love interest. The business in hand is to bring a criminal to the bar of justice, not to bring a lovelorn couple to the hymeneal altar." In other words, it was felt to be inappropriate for any literary detective to have a romantic interest, so it's not surprising that the Chan novels had none.  Accounting4Taste:talk 20:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

But of course to say so in the course of the article would be original research by synthesis, I think.  Accounting4Taste:talk 20:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the "asexual" thing is off-base and irrelevant.  That interpretation is looking back with modern standards and modern sensibilities.  He had more than a dozen children, he was not asexual.  He also encourages romance and love interests, and makes statements about women's attractiveness.  The fact that he doesn't make rude, leering comments is a statement on the time the stories were written and filmed, and were an effort to present him as polite and soft-spoken instead of rude and crude. Macduff (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I very much agree with your designation of "off-base", and I disagree with the critics who suggest he was asexual (he has 14 children in the movies!).  But as Ricardiana notes above, we have a responsibility to include those expert critical viewpoints in an encyclopedia; they are relevant, even if off-base.  It's likely that many knowledgeable readers will draw the same conclusion that we have, I think, but they must be allowed the chance to do so.  Accounting4Taste:talk 20:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the charge that Charlie Chan was written and portrayed as "asexual," any objective student of history would consider how many married detectives of the era of all races were portrayed as cheating on their wives while investigating crimes. Would critics of Chan as portrayed in the '20s, '30s and '40s be happier if his film adventures had included scenes that showed him cheating on his wife? I think not, but that's for the critics of Chan to address. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)) 

please discuss your issue on the talk page. Please bear in mind that an encyclopedia is meant to present all points of view. Therefore, in the lead multiple points of view should be presented, even if you disagree with one of them. The same goes for the body of the article. Thanks. Ricardiana (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidently La Serpienta Roja was also a Chan Li Po film, and there may have been others.  It was also a radio serial.  Chan Li Po seems to have been as one source in Google Books states "a Panamanian version of Charlie Chan" (which given Chan's Panamanian hat, is perhaps appropriate).  I think more info on the Chan Li Po stuff would be of interest to people reading about Charlie Chan, although I don't know if it should all be added here.  Possibly Chan Li Po should have his own article? Шизомби (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a fascinating gloss on Charlie Chan; is there enough in the way of secondary sources for anything more than a stub?  Accounting4Taste:talk 20:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I suspect there is too much to include in the Charlie Chan article, but it may not make for a very long article of its own.  I may try drafting something, time permitting. Шизомби (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I visited this article on Charlie Chan hoping to learn something about this fictional character and his creator.  Instead, the article consists solely of criticism of the Chan movies.  No biographical information about Chan is provided:  his parents' names, his wife's name, his childrens' names, his education, employment history, etc.  No information about how or why Earl der Biggers invented the character.  No list of the Chan stories or the Chan films.  No history of how the character evolved through der Biggers' stories.  This article is utterly useless and should be entirely deleted (unless this article is retitled "The 'Charlie Chan' films perpetuate a demeaning stereotype").  Cwkmail (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what version of the article you're referring to, because the one I see at the moment [1] does not consist solely of criticism and does have a bibliography and filmography, and has some discussion of the creation of the character.  Some of the other things might deserve to be added if there are sources, although some of them sound like trivia (Chan's parents?). Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
See Wikipedia's article on Sherlock Holmes in order to learn how a biography of a fictional detective should be written.  It's based on careful studies of Conan Doyle's stories.  None of the contributors to this article seem to have actually read any of Earl der Biggers' stories.  None of the footnotes cite the original stories; at best, a couple of footnotes mention a couple of quotes from the books which appeared in works about the Chan films and books.  After reading this article, I didn't even know in what decades Chan was supposed to have lived and worked.  However, the article succeeds in making very clear that some critics regard him as "asexual" and that being asexual is the worst failing that a human can be accused of.  Useless.Cwkmail (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I've complained about the asexuality before as well ("bovine" is also an inaccurate or unfair characterization, but unfortunately one which has been made, apparently).  Sherlock Holmes is arguably a better article, albeit a failed good article nominee, so not all that exemplary.  While it got away with it, citing to primary sources often gets attacked as OR, sometimes with good cause.  WP editors shouldn't themselves be making "careful studies" of ACD that much, they should be finding and citing them.  The whole article isn't "Useless," but anyhow, if you have ideas to improve it, I hope that means you might work at some point to improve it or find people who will, as I will at some point, time permitting. Did EDB write any Chan stories?  I thought he only wrote Chan novels. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Largely agree, though "terrible" is probably too strong a word.  Classically most Wikipedia articles have too much in-character biography and too little critical response; this article is entirely the reverse, with sections such as the "Books" taking more time to talk about why Chan is racist to certain authors.  Meh.  Don't get me wrong, these kinds of academic papers should be included somewhere, but I think that they should be taken with a grain of salt as well - a lot of grad students are just trying to get published and it's easier to do so if you stir the pot and make big claims.
For example, I'd be very suspicious of using much of the Jachinson Chan (2001) - Chinese American masculinities: from Fu Manchu to Bruce Lee. article anywhere (which it currently is used heavily).  His interest seems to be in "masculinity" as equivalent to "awesomeness" and Chan just happens to convenient gristle to rail against from that POV.  You end up with nonsense quotes like "his role is still secondary to the white, middle-to-upper class male lead who is always a sexual being" and, for that matter, the part in the intro about how "Chan, despite his good qualities, is one-dimensional, and that, further, Chan is portrayed as effeminate" which clearly implies effeminate is not a good quality.  Last I checked, Hercule Poirot was not exactly busting down doors, romancing women, and pumping iron, but I can't imagine this is used as a serious criticism against him.  Looks like the "asexual" bit was already covered above; if every character for which romance was not a main concern in the stories was called asexual, that's a pretty epic list you're creating.  Actually half-tempted to just entirely eliminate the paragraph that's sourced to Chan (2001) - I recognize that work surely went into it, but meh, some works just have to get tossed on common sense grounds. SnowFire (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The "asexual" criticism is just kooky. Just because someone, somewhere wrote it does not mean there's room for it in an encyclopedia article. A man with a bus-load of children cannot be said to be asexual in any rational sense. Charlie Chan is a man of intellect, not a man of action (although he does occasionally use a gun). He is a fictional character, and can hardly be expected to be revealed as a "real" person. Sherlock Holmes was defined as asexual by Conan Doyle - Chan is a detective who does detecting in books and movies, and has an obvious sexual back-story. In any dispute, put me down as in favor of an edit that entirely removes any reference to the asexual silliness. 
MarkinBoston (talk) 04:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The next-to-the-last film in the list is the USA TV-movie/series pilot with Ross Martin. I believe the statement about the two titles has it exactly backwards, that Happiness is a Warm Clue was used when Universal finally pulled it off the shelf to try to get some money out of it. The idea of a series was long defunct by then so the rather generic title would have been used instead of the one identifying the lead character who had become quite controversial. I saw it at the time, and am certain "Charlie Chan" was not in the title. BTW, the IMDb does indicate Return... for the 1973 UK transmission, for whatever that's worth. --Tbrittreid (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The entry mentioned that a Charlie Chan film festival planned by one of the television networks was cancelled because a "special interest group" complained. Since the group obviously went public with its complaint the name of the group can't be a secret. Someone who is a specialist is this area should add the name of the group to the entry. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC))

Would it be appropriate to mention him being parodied in Murder by Death?
67.188.5.93 (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The following passage written by Biggers in 1931 casts doubt about when the character was conceived: "In 1919 I had a couple of plays in rehersal... and when that job was finished I found myself with a blood pressure... In the following Spring I was sitting one evening... Suddenly there in the twilight I thought of an excellent way of murdering a man... When I got back to the manland, however, I devoted myself to short stories... and it was four years after my return that I decided to do the Honolulu mystery story. ...In one of the dailies I came across... Chang Apana and Lee Fook..." pg 28, Popular culture By David Manning White It appears that it was not 1919 when Charlie Chan was created. Shawnc (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Where would I put that Private Pike once referenced Charlie Chan in Dad's Army? Drakon467 (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Just seems kinda weird to me that there's a "species: human" part in the infobox.
EmilioDiegoGarcia (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charlie Chan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120520005311/http://www.thevintageplayhouse.com:80/Articles.asp?ID=134 to http://www.thevintageplayhouse.com/Articles.asp?ID=134
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charlie Chan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109113206/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmUxMjFmYTlmZjU3MGMzZTM1ODYxMmY4MTBkOWY1ODE%3D to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmUxMjFmYTlmZjU3MGMzZTM1ODYxMmY4MTBkOWY1ODE%3D
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

IMO, this article has always been a bit questionable on GA status, but never pushed it because the old GA status was very lenient and it'd be easier to just improve the article slightly rather than complain about it on the talk page.  There was a movement to make the GA guidelines higher and enforced more strictly, and start speedier good article reassessing after a big discussion ~6 months or so ago, though.  In my opinion, the old article focused too much on academic articles discussing Chan and American perceptions of Asians / Asian-Americans and racism.  Which is nice and all (although some of the sources, since removed, were very weak per older comments), but there's not that much on everything else for a character who was once extremely popular.  Unsure if there are any article page watchers out there, but I think this article needs improvements on several fronts to keep its GA status.  I'd be happy to help out though if anyone is interested in taking a look.  (If nothing happens, I might send this to WP:GAR in ~3 months or so.)  SnowFire (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)