Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 13

message: Maybe The Hypersexuality of Race: Performing Asian/American Women on Screen and Scene?  Check out the ToC on Amazon or Google.
:Thank you. миражinred 04:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately Google took out a vast chunk of the book so I could only see the first chapter and the last. =( миражinred 04:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible references?

message: Please note that this page has a history of being vandalized. User:Saranghae honey nominated this page for deletion, but that request was declined. This was the second time this page has been nominated for deletion and of course both times the request was declined. User:Saranghae honey took it upon him or herself to make massive massive amount of changes to the page which he or she claims is for improving the "integrity" of the page. Of course many of these changes involved deleting much of the content of the page. I being new to the wikipedia editing world tried to keep the content, with their reliable source, that people worked hard on from being deleted. I tried to bring back some items that have been deleted in the past for obviously bias reasons. With all these deletions going on I decided that since User:LaraLove had no problem with User:Saranghae honey deletion of half the references from the page, I believe it would be ok for me to delete any changes that User:Saranghae honey made that did not have any sources that fit under WP:V. User:Saranghae honey added a new definition to Asian fetish that used a quote from the "colorq.org" site. This site seems more like a personal site with articles that have very few articles with authors specified. It's obviously bias since it slogan is "interracial interactions between people of color". There are no indication as to who exactly owns, runs, and funds this site. I don't believe this can be used a valid source. So to have a definition that uses a quote from this site then that means that the definition can be removed. This does not mean that I will not allow such a definition to be added. It just means that I expect that such definition be added with a quote that accurately convey the notion that author is trying to present. And of course it should come from a reliable source. I am doing all this red tape because that was what User:Saranghae honey and many on this page has made me put up with while trying to defend the content of this page. 
Please also note that I had to spend a lot of time rewriting much of the quotes and summarization of source because I've found them to not reflect the source data accurately. For example User:Saranghae honey wrote the following:
:Asian fetish has been used in a more benign context to mean "a harmless preference for specific physical characteristics, such as narrow eyes and flatter noses, as harmless as some people's preference for dating, say, fatter partners." 19:54, 27 December 2007
The actual quote is the following:
:"Some say Asian fetish' is just a harmless preference for specific physical characteristics, such as narrow eyes and flatter noses, as harmless as some people's preference for dating, say, fatter partners." colorq.com source
The colorq source went through a lot of trouble to specify both sides of the asian fetish issue. One side indicating it's a benign while the other side saying it's not. If you read closely you realize that User:Saranghae honey was trying to imply that it's general accepted by ALL the notion that asian fetish is benign when actually the source specifically specified only some believed this notion. I found that way User:Saranghae honey chopped the quote was an attempt to mitigate Asian fetish. Seeing how User:Saranghae honey wanted this page deleted and is continually deleting content from this page I can make this conclusion. 
I've found this manipulation of source data all over the page. 
Another example is the "Racial preferences in dating" dating part of the page. Originally this was written as claiming that a scientific study proved that asian fetish does not exist. That's so far from the truth. An article was written in salon magazine in which one of the authors of the study derived from the study that it proved to HIM that asian fetish does not exist. Please read the old version of this part of the page and my version and look at the study and the article being referenced. I assure you that my entry is an unbiased view of the article and situation. With that I believe I can actually delete this section as this guy was obviously stating an opinion and wikipedia is not a source for opinions. Or at the very least this section does not deserve to have such a prominent place and use up a lot of space on this page. It's a biased opinion from one man. And it's sad that such bias comes from an author of the study which brings into question the validity of the study itself. old Asian Preference in Dating section vs new Racial preference in Dating section
Here's another example of older version of the definition that was on this page:
:Asian fetish denotes a sexual attraction favoring Asian people for their race and perceptions of their culture. 02:45, 28 November 2007
The above was written with a reference to Sheridan Prasso's "The Asian Mystique" book. I found that the following was the actual quote from which the above was summarized from:
:"What isn't normal, however, is when preference crosses the invisible line, when Asian and Asian-American women on the receiving end feel--as Liao and Kwon say--objectified and valued not for who they are as people, but for their race or perceptions of the culture they come from."
My version imo accurately convey the exact meaning that the author was trying to convey. The original summary was a gross manipulation of the source once again.
I wrote this to make clear to all that I am neutral. The only mistakes I've made are noobie mistakes that people starting to edit in wikipedia does. And of course to make clear to all the situation I am putting up with on this page. Tkguy (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tkguy's Background Information

message: I prefer  with heavy copy editing and additional sources. миражinred 01:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Saranghae honey's comments

message: Once again nobody is writing about colorq.org and whether or not it's a valid source. And once again nobody is considering the fact that Racism and Sexism pages start out with a definition. So name me a page that involves a social situation regarding race relations that starts out with a WP:LEAD. Obviously the way you people write about it, it's seem like it's a widely accepted practice in regards to race base social interactions. Tkguy (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tkguy's comment

message: I've read the portion of Phoebe Eng's book that everybody seems to using to substantiate that she believes that asian fetish helps asians. This is far far far from the truth. She spends much of the book talking about asian fetish and how pervasive it is in the lives of Asian women who are raised in America. She wrote about the sex tourism industry and how it's important for asian females through out the world understand that these prostitutes actually effect how they are being perceived even though they are in a different country. She spends many many pages on this topic. I couldn't find a quote that would summarize her notions so I had to put in a summary. She writes about mail-order brides. She also goes on and on about how Asian females must acknowledge that Asian fetish is a huge burden that they must deal with. She has a section in which she is very aware that many men equates asian females to sex. The subtitle of this section is literally "Asian Women = Sex"!!! The quote I put on the asian fetish page that so many have been using to indicate that phoebe thinks Asian fetish helps asian females is a gross manipulation of her work. She has these sentence and one quote from a non-asian female who is envious of the attention that asian females get as a result of asian fetish. This was put in to provide a counterpoint since she spend so much of the book on the negative side of asian fetish. Stop making it out like Phoebe thinks asian fetish is benign. Read her book. She does not think it's benign at all. Tkguy (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eventually I will remove the quote from phoebe that provides a counterpoint to her argument that asian fetish is not benign. To put this in and make it so prominent is a misrepresentation of her work. I suspect the "Yell-oh! Girl" reference is the same as Phoebe wrote a forward to this book. Tkguy (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Phoebe Eng

message: Saranghae honey removed the reference to the jezebel.com site written by Moe Tkacik. This is no different than the Tracy Quan's sex column source. I will add it back in. This person has worked for the Wall Street Journal and Time Asia. So she has credentials in commenting on the issue of Asian fetish. [Moe Tkacik]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkguy (talk • contribs) 17:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because it's a blog. Blogs normally aren't used as a source. миражinred 17:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Moe Tkacik

message: This page is under arbitration. Everything I added was put on scrutiny and so it's only fair that everything everybody else adds should be treated the same. Since you can't give a valid reason for adding the reference. I will remove it. Tkguy (talk) 07:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Boy this guy's a pedantic little creep. No wonder you guys scrutinize everything he writes. Keep up the good work. Chris (クリス) (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You shouldn't be going around calling people names. Why don't you assume good faith editing? I did by not deleting your changes until I found out why you added the yellow cab reference in. But seeing how you don't think you need to provide a reason I realized you are pretty much saying that it there because you said so. So now I will delete this entry. Tkguy (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a reference, it's a see also link. There was certainly no source regarding adoption and Asian fetish but it's not deleted, is it. You also need to assume good faith and that other editors edit the article to improve and expand the article. миражinred 08:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If you would just work with other editors more constructively... By the way, controversy is not a misc section for paragraphs and information that doesn't fit neatly under other sections. Everyone has different opinions and biases. Just because you don't like one man's study, doesn't mean it goes to the controversy section... миражinred 07:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are right I had a hard time working with Chris Mann Mckay and Kietenbushi. But guess what they were proven to be vandals and were 3rr blocked. So just like the way you summarize your sources you are misrepresenting this situation as it is. BTW I keep up with asian american news and this article was very very controversial. Lots of people wrote about this article and panned it. Of course there were a lot of support from non-asian men for the article. Tkguy (talk) 07:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: whining by Tkguy

message: I found this article from Audrey. The magazine has an editorial board and has been featured in several national media outlets. Has some interesting criticisms about the selective application of the label to white men seeking Asian women. Phyesalis (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. It's already included in the footnotes at the controversy section. (next to "The controversy surrounding the term has been criticized as a notion that preference for a minority and portrayal of a minority as an attractive group is abnormal.") Please feel free to expand/reword. It's been difficult to incorporate the points from the editorial and word them to be neutral. миражinred 07:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you have any other articles from Audrey regarding this topic? I could only find two. миражinred 07:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional source

message: There's not really any evidence from much controversy here. There's a renamed facebook group, some campus protests, and a bald assertion that and OC Weekly article caused controversy, although there is no evidence of the controversy. I think these lines should be filled out with actual details of the purported controversy, converted into sources elsewhere in the article, or simply eliminated as random trivia. See WP:TRIVIA. Cool Hand Luke 21:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the incidents seem relevant to Asian fetish. However, I do agree that mention about the OC Weekly article should either be deleted or used as a source. миражinred 21:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's apparent that you do not keep up with asian american news. The OC Weekly article was one of the most talked about article of the year in the asian community. On all the forums and asian blogs this article was talked about. The author even followed up with another article because of the incredible uproar it caused. Please do not delete any more content until you can justify your changes. Tkguy (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm entitled to edit freely as long as I'm willing to work cooperatively with other editors. So the OC Weekly article led to a lot of discussion. So what? миражinred 21:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what a "controversy" is. Tkguy (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where's your source for that? The details of the controversy might be relevant here. If it's just discussion board activity, however, that is not a reliable source. Cool Hand Luke 22:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The OC Weekly article was one of the most talked about article of the year in the asian community. that is a bold assetion. Provide reliable sources which state that. If that is your reason the article should be included you need to back that up. Otherwise its simply your opinion.--Crossmr (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section is actually trivia

message: The University of Virginia incident needs to be removed. The citation is an article/blog and does not have editorial oversight, in fact the website even has a disclaimer stating this. Unless otherwise noted, the views expressed in any article, cartoon, editorial, blog post, blog comment, or other content on CampusProgress.org are those of its author and not necessarily the official position of the Center for American Progress or Campus Progress.. I see nothing on the page backing the writer contrary to this disclaimer.--Crossmr (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it for you.  I read the article and searched for the title of it on Google.  It looks like a relatively unknown op-ed piece by a little-known author; I'd put it on par with an op-ed in a college newspaper.  The Facebook group doesn't exist under any name anymore anyway. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Don't suppose you could merge the citations as I described in the section just above this too could you?--Crossmr (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I understand your posts correctly, the topics that you want merged (sex crimes and mail-order brides?) aren't related to each other... or at least if we did try to draw that parallel it would be POV, asserting that every guy who wants to marry a girl from another country is a sex offender.  Could you explain further, or maybe write your proposed changes on the talk page? --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, just the citation in Sex crimes. 13 and 14 go to the same citation, no point in having it listed twice, 14 just needs its pointer changed to that of 13, (especially since 13 is already used twice)--Crossmr (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  I removed the citation whose <ref> tag didn't have a name.  Now it's clear that the information is only coming from one source. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: ... is blocked, as the reincarnation of a known edit warrior. Users who were encouraged in their viewpoint by this user, may wish to reconsider any encouragement they were given on discussion viewpoints they were putting forward, in light of this.
FT2 (Talk | email) 21:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your information. миражinred  (speak, my child...) 21:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Aberdeenharbour]]