Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 6

message: The following text was refactored from the main Talk page on 02:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

message: Keep or Delete: Asian_fetish#Physical_anthropology_and_sociology
* Keep. I wrote it in its entirety, I looked up all the sources, obviously I support it. --Wzhao553 05:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Surely you mean "re-wrote".  I applaud your checking of sources and realize that you put considerable work into it.  The question remains, though: Is this really related to "Asian fetish"?  Because the sources are secondary (i.e., they do not refer directly to Asian fetish) the material surely is Original research. Sunray 17:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: * comment Heaven's knight is not an old participant, but  modelminority puppet.80.138.190.9 22:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *commentLycheng is not an old participant, but a modelminority puppet.80.138.190.9 22:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *comment:Boasian leftist  notion of the impossibility of clear and relatively easy laws of anthropology.80.138.190.9 12:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *comment:Knußmann, Baker and Hartmann are "physical anthropology" not "cultural anthropology".All conclusions follow logically directly from their statements.
*Delete. Not directly related to a sexual fetish. -Will Beback 02:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *comment: nope,the most related as it explains biological basics.80.138.191.208 11:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Physical anthropology

message: While rewriting the page, I was shocked at how much latent POV is in there.  I don't mean facts -- I am not qualified to judge their per se accuracy.  The article is laden with phrases like "huge disparity" (vs. simply "disparity"), "activists allege", U.S. media "constantly portrayed" (vs. "portrayed"), a danger to "innocent white women" (vs. guilty ones?), "critics contend", "the irony is" (in an encyclopedia article!), "today the biggest critics ... are generally Asians", while "others adopt a more egalitarian view".  It is astonishing, and this is leaving out the giant sections identified above (anthropolicy, sex crimes, etc) which appear to be someone's POV, but certainly NOR.
A bigger problem is that virtually none of the bald-faced statements in the article have real citations.  "The Joy Luck Club ... is strongly disliked by many Asian organizations"  Is this actually true?  If so, there should be a citation.  "asian fetish is suggested as an explanation for the (census) disparity" -- by whom? You would think that, in the course of gathering 5 full archive pages of talk, there would have been some actual citations stuck in there.
I don't want to get in between the warring factions here (probably too late), but if the page must exist, it needs to be a short, succinct page of widely-agreed upon facts, with the incipient social research carried on somewhere else. -- Gnetwerker 08:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Untrue -- you deleted my comments and others'.  Ugur Basak did the page a service by speedily reverting the edit.  No contribution of yours was lost. -- Gnetwerker 16:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This user (ip address 80.138.193.152) has a long history of altering other people's comments in the discussion page.  That should be the basis for banning his account in my opinion.OneViewHere 23:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest proceeding to a user RfC. 208.54.14.9 15:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General POV comments

message: The entire article is based on a string ignorant racist stereotypes presented without being logically examined. The article is the work of people working hard, but barely managing to conceal their own ignorance, jealousy and hatred. An article as baseless in fact, and as obviously purely opinion-based as this one has no place in a site pretending to be any sort of serious encyclopedia. 
If Wikipedia allows this garbage to stand, neo-Nazis should be allowed to post articles on how Jews destroy societies, and how to identify them through skull-measurement; Japanese right-wingers should be allowed to post justification for the actions of their military during the '30s and '40s, flat-earthers should be allowed to present their view as a valid opinion. All of this idiocy can be "supported" by "evidence" written by quacks with as much authority in their fields as the ones cited in this article. 
WIKIPEDIA-- DELETE THIS ENTIRE SACK OF GARBAGE IF YOU WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AT ALL
67.92.214.246 02:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not post deleted text on the talk page. Thanks, -Will Beback 22:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist Garbage, This Whole Article Should Be Deleted 

message: 80.138.166.174 22:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The vote was clear as Sunray stated correctly: there was n o 2/3 majority for the anthropology section deletion faction (57,8%). 

message: I've deleted the section as discussed above, in line with consensus; I've also softened the level of protection to semi, in the hope that more normal editing can continue.  I must say that this article needs a thorough clean-up at the least.  If it were up for AfD I'd probably vote against at the moment.  --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 18:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection and deletion 

message: I will revert Mel Etitis deletion of the anthro-sec because of the following, agreeing to Sunray's previous comment on wiki standards:User Mel Etitis's deletion of the anthropology section  did not respect that there was  no 2/3 majority for deletion (in neither of the two proposed ways of counting the votes ):surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication fails." Usually on talk pages a two thirds majority is considered decisive in determining the content of an article.80.138.194.229 23:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As several people have said, consensus is not simply a numbers game.  There are many other factors that are taken into account.  Allow me to draw your attention to something that Mel Etitis said in that regard: "... what counts is that the reasons for deletion are well made, and appeal correctly to Wikipedia policies on original research and NPoV.  There are also some suspicious new participants on the keep side, and the central rôle played by anons doesn't help."  It is well established within Wikipedia that anons and very new users do not have the same weight as established users. Sunray 00:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: user:Sunray wrote, "In both cases a Supermajority of editors have indicated a preference for deletion of these sections." That seems clear. -Will Beback 00:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Re: "...40% of the people."  You will have to prove that you are a person in order to gain respect around here.  To date you are a series of anonymous IP numbers in the range 80.138.XXX.etc.  That could be one person or ten.  No way of knowing.  To put it plainly: your vote does not count.  Sunray 03:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "40% is nearly a supermajority"...  That's superb. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 21:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   Um, 55% and 60% is a mathamatical majority.  40% is NOT a "majority", let alone a "supermajority".  You're not even making any sense.  I think even the most casual observer who reads your statements will see the fallacy of your arguments.  Once again, if you support race-based behavior, (ie, Asians are "naturally feminine and passive", then how is that different from saying that "blacks are violent" or that "Jews are greedy"?  It's the SAME reasoning and I still haven't heard you address this yet.  Until you address this logical fallacy I will assume that you are avoiding the issue to avoid being seen as racist, -which should by now be obvious to even the most casual reader of this discussion.OneViewHere 18:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  40% of the votes are not respected !

message: and  are enough; adding  etc. only over-eggs the pudding. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said in my comment, I think the weasel designation is the most important one. PhatJew 10:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the weasel one is a subset of the NPoV one; that is, it's a particular way in which the article's PoV, so it's covered by the general template, but is only part of that template.  It's thus the less important one. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 14:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, I must disagree. More specific tags help editors fix the problem. PhatJew 23:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: Censoring will fail and the power of the censors.80.138.193.77 02:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that your previous article on "Virago" was deleted from the German Wikipedia for precisely the same reasons.  You are creating quite a precedent here.  Please tell us again how "Jews are trying to control Wikipedia" and that "leftist feminists are ruining European man".  You must be quite the cut-up at parties....  OneViewHere 18:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   40% of the votes are not respected  

message: 80.138.168.55 17:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can make your font as large as you want.  That won't make people agree with you.
Tell me again how you think "Jews are controlling Wikipedia"?  Your silence on that topic is.....deafening.OneViewHere 20:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: He probably thinks that the evidence is in the little stars of David found everywhere; you know, "* * *".  Either that or Elvis told him. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Now wash your hands. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 09:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry you think this way. Were you always like this? Infinity0 talk 13:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So, you think the media is a "Jewish controlled media", in addition to believing that Wikipedia is "controlled by Jews". :Sometimes when you give someone enough rope..... OneViewHere 15:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  40% of the votes shall be respected 2