Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 11

message: There may be some people that have an obsession with a certain ethnicity.
but
- maybe some people are tired of being stuck into one category, and want their children to be a little more immune to this racialism, you know what I mean?
I feel bad for people who are angry about this, but I think people need to look more objectively and with a bigger perspective, and look away from the past and towards the future, as difficult as that might be.Spettro9 05:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An explanation 

message: This article is better than it was, but is still essentially a piece of propaganda, apparently aiming to stigmatize interracial and intercultural relationships with pseudopsychological nonsense. The use of the perjorative word "fetish" alone is wholly inappropriate, has no scientific basis, but pretends to. In logic, this fallacy would be called "begging the question", as its phrasology already assumes and implies a conclusion. Far better would be to encyclopedize this subject into an article called Asian Interracial Outmarriage or something like that.  Soda80 01:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of article is too POV 

message: This article has a very clear anti-asian fetish bias, with both direct and implicated notions that an asian fetish is a negative thing and no alternative viewpoints are offered. While this view is valid, it is opinion and thus does not belong in wikipedia in its current form. The NNPOV in this article is so pervasive that I believe a complete rewrite is necessary. I would do it myself but I do not consider myself to be knowledgeable enough about this topic. Vonkwink 09:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding?  Criticism of the term as well as the usage of the term is littered all over the article.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hong, then why did you remove an argument against the fetish?  You removed my addition claiming it was completely unreferenced.  Why didn't you just put a citation request like the wikipedia policy states!  Perhaps you just can't handle other possible explanations!  If you want references, you will get them.  But if you delete what you don't agree with, there is no chance for a reference! 144.81.32.187 16:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is very contentious.  Please discuss first before you add a whole new section.  Besides, the references in this article itself would seem to counter your point that the term is "completely unreferenced".  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also added some material to the article before it was locked. Was that you that kept deleting it Gong? Rest assured I will be visiting this topic often. I for one will not be forced into some bizarre stereotype created by the Gongs of the world to feel better about themselves. Why can't asian men be satisfied with being asian men without demonizing white men? Do you require that we be somehow beaten down and crushed before you will feel secure? Do you not see that this war against white men completely betrays the depths of your insecurity? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computer1200 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome.  Go put that in your blog.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Egregious NNPOV 

message: There can be no discussion of sexual preference without some information about the biological and evolutionary factors.  HongQiGong has taken it upon himself to delete without discussion.  There is an extremely strong evolutionary basis for sexual selection!  It would be useful to include this in any discussion involving it.  Please write a yay or nay to show your support.  144.81.32.187 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was never a source discussing specifically Asian fetish in the biological context.  That section was original research strung together by unrelated articles.  There has also been past discussions on that section and it had been taken out a long time ago.  But regardless, please discuss before adding an entire section.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am discussing it!  There is a need to address the biological factors involved in the fetish.  There I said it!  It doesn't matter if some hair-brained theories were removed before.  This still needs to be addressed.  I don't see any scientific sources on the fetish at all!  The DSM's definition of fetish is for inanimate objects.  Should we then remove the whole article because there is no good research cited?  Most of the sources are either humorous or editorials.  Perhaps we should rename the article "Asian Fetishes in Popular Culture", and remove any claims of scientific validity.  So either permit the science or remove it.  Do not pick and choose.  144.81.32.187 16:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So is your issue that the article is poorly sourced, or that we need to add a new section discussion biology?  Which is it?  If you think that the article is poorly sourced, I would think that the solution is to work on sourcing it better, and not adding a new section that is poorly sourced and basically original research.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know which it is, read the first sentence of my discussion!  My point is allow the science or remove any scientific claims from the article currently.  Why is it that the current content of the article can remain even though it is porrly sourced, but the biological stuff cannot remain poorly sourced?  I agree with you: the solution is to work on sourcing it better, not removing any and all biological claims, as you have done!  Allow poorly sourced biological material to remain, giving it a chance to be sourced better, or remove all the poorly sourced material, which would be most of the article!  I mean look at reference 4.  WTF?  That is a internet forum! 144.81.32.187 17:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That hardly justifies editors putting in yet more poorly sourced materials.  Again, the article is very contentious.  I would prefer that we discuss the addition of so much material before we actually insert it.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then perhaps we should remove the poorly sourced material.  I will commence tomorrow.  144.81.32.187 17:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't disrupt Wikipedia in order to illustrate a point. Please register a username to assist communication. -Will Beback · † · 18:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You can also discuss exactly what it is you would like to add to the article.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole article ignores human biology that leads to certain racial trends in intermarriage. Moreover, most of the present information stems from a group group of Asian supremacists, primarily from the website modelminority.com. Their intention is to cast a negative light on White-Asian intermarriage through articles such as this. Their information is poorly sourced, the only sources are other Asian American "activists" who also oppose White-Asian sexual relationships. Biological reasons are ignored in favour of racist conspiracy theories, about the mass media etc. --Mr Phil 04:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mr Phil, I am surprised to find you still trolling this article.  You and the other German poster long ago tried to twist this article into a discussion on racist anthropological theories.  I believe that other German poster was eventually banned for his actions, but here you are still.  The first line of the article states that this article is not about healthy interracial relationships nor is there any opposition to "white-asian relationships" in general.  This article is merely referring to a *type* of relationship.  The fact that you so quickly dismiss all effects of culture, racial stereotypes, and mass media show that you are not the least bit interested in discussin this article and are only here to promote your racist anthropological theories.  Anybody here can scroll back to through the discussions to see what you are all about.OneViewHere 04:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Mr Phil, I have reverted your additions as you have repeatedly tried to add these SAME passages to the article countless times before.  And each time, the Wikipedia community by CONSENSUS decided to remove those passages.  The fact that you are trying to add those same passages again amounts to vandalism.  If you persist in doing this I will notify the Wikipedia Admins.OneViewHere 04:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Just for the record in case anybody needs proof of Mr Phil's vandalism, please look through the article's edit history.  Look at the October 9-06 entries and then look way back to Feb-06.  It's been a full YEAR that this person has been trying to re-add those same passages.OneViewHere 04:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Correct.  Steve Sailer is a well documented racist.  Also, this user Mr Phil once tried to quote an article from a magazine called "American Renaissance" to support his racist theories.  American Renaissance is a white supremacist magazine.  Interestingly enough, there is a Wikipedia article on Steve Sailer that documents his racist leanings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Sailer  OneViewHere 05:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: --Mr Phil 07:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr Phil, I hardly think you are in a position to accuse other users of being racist when you quote Steve Sailer and quote from a white supremacist magazine.  You also tried to re-add content that was already decided by the Wikipedia community to be removed from this article.  Your attempts to re-add that content is vandalism and I will be notifying the Wikipedia admins.OneViewHere 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That would only be hypocritical of me if I was a "leftist" who believes that "existence of human races/stirpes/taxa" is racist.  But I'm not, and I don't.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This user that goes by the IP address of 80.138.178.141 is the same German user that originally tried to add the racist anthropological content.  It is clear that this unregistered user is acting in conjunction with Dr. Phil to vandalize this article.  This unregistered user has been known to make racist comments in the past.  He claimed once that "Jews control Wikipedia".  That comment is in the discussion archives of this article and can be viewed by anyone.  Please refer to the discussion archive #6 where a vote was taken to remove this racist anthropological content.OneViewHere 22:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a 'neutral' observer (I stumbled upon this article and its current dispute through a watched user talk page, quite by accident, and I have no interest whatsoever in the subject matter), I am astonished to look at the page history and see the submissions/reversions by Mr Phil. The intonation is of a blatant racist and inflammatory nature. I am happy to mention this as there was a call for yay or nay at the top of the post. 'Nay' to Mr Phil, I'm afraid. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biological Basis 

message: The heading Asian_fetish#Anthropological_explanation_of_Asian_fetishes is completely fucked up. Could an admin remove this part:
"Regarding the article "nonanoic acid" (pelargonic acid: It is also used as an organic herbicide (brand name: Scythe) which degrades rapidly and poses no known contamination threat. It acts by disintegrating the cuticle (shiny layer) of leaves. Since it acts only on leaves and tender shoots, it will not kill plants that propagate by runners: poison ivy, English ivy, black locust, wild grape. A systemic herbicide is needed in cases of such plants. A mixture of pelargonic acid and glyphosphate (Round Up, et al.)has been recommended. The first removes cuticle and the latter penetrates to roots. Neither alone erdicates English ivy. Glyphosphate also degrades within 48 hours.
Thanks for your consideration.
Thomas J Cantwell cantwell@bvunet.net" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mackan (talk • contribs) 16:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your racist anthropology section was removed by a consensus vote of the Wikipedia community.  If you continue your attempts to vandalize it, then the Wiki admins will just have to leave the article write-protected forever. OneViewHere 21:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Here're a couple of good places for you to pathologise all you want - www.xanga.com or www.blogspot.com.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That's great.  But that's also not the topic of this article.  Feel free to reference that in the article about interracial relationships.  I don't know how many times I've told people to read this article.  This article is about non-Asians having a sexual attraction especially for Asian people.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Enough, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia does not allow original research. This  has gone on for long enough. If it continue, I will semi-protect this talk page. If you have well sourced NPOV content to present then do so and we will discuss that, but these rants accomplish nothign. JoshuaZ 20:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please just protect it now and consider taking admin actions against these people.  They're not going to stop.  They were banned in the German Wikipedia already.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  These users have already stated their intent to re-add their content back into the article even after a consensus vote by the Wiki community went against them.  This has been going on for a year now by these same 2 vandals.  If you look at Mr Phil's user talk page, he has been reprimanded several times already by other Wiki admins for use of profanity and abusing the 3RR revert rule.  The other anon IP guy has been banned by German Wikipedia.  I think that is more than enough basis to ban them here too.  OneViewHere 23:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalized version kept 

message: There is too much opinion and commentary in factual sections.  There is too much uncited or poorly cited materials.
Let us please make a separate section called "Commentary, Opinion, and Activism", because most of the information falls into it.  Then it can be subdivided.
Let's also add a section called something like "Negative Consequences of the Asian Fetish" in society or something like that.  That way all the material from non-prominent non-majority views (see WP:NPOV policy) can be placed into the same section.
Also, lets make a list facts that should be used for creating the neutral part of the page.  Please add facts (not facts about opinions, which should be added in that section).
There is definitely a theme about the ills of Asian fetishes that run through many of the sections.  It would be efficient and useful for NPOV purposes to consolidates these into one section appropriately titled, rather than to have them strewn about the various sections causing all sorts of NPOV issues (are the competing viewpoints addressed in each section too).
Facts
Asian fetish is a sexual preference for Asian women or men.
While (like every aspect of human behavior) it is related to psychology in the lay sense, an Asian fetish is in no way a fetish in the true psychological sense as accepted in the medical or scientific communities.  Therefore it should be defined as a sexual preference.  And please let's simply state that before getting into all the negative consequences of the Asian fetish.
  
   Exactly, a preference of  racially masculine Europid males for racially feminine Mongolid females
   according to the three universal Hartmann laws of sexuality. We had written an excellent paragraph       
   on this which was the only scientific part of the entire article.This insight does not harm 
   anyone. Shaffir , Prasso etc. insult people.80.138.184.206 01:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice big words, who wouldn't like it?  Just make sure it's properly sourced.  And please, a username is free. Teji 02:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits and Restructuring

message: Ok, one thing at a time.  Let's take a look at the intro.  Do you have any problem with the current wording?
:The term Asian fetish is a construct combining the definitions of "Asian" and "fetish." In this way, the term can be understood as the attraction or sexual preference, usually of non-Asian men or women, for Asian women or men. In colloquial usage, a non-Asian person who is exclusively interested in Asian people for sexual and/or romantic relationships is said to have an Asian fetish. Some believe Asian fetish to be racist and sexist against Asians and Asian Americans because the attraction or sexual preference is based either partly or wholly on race or racial stereotypes. However, others disagree with this assertion, and believe that the use of the term to describe one's sexual preference for Asian women is a way to indiscriminantly condemn all relationships between Asian women and non-Asian men. The first known usage of the term "Asian fetish" came from Asian American author David Henry Hwang.
:Controversy rages and criticism abounds on this topic. Controversies include disputes over the definition of the term "Asian fetish", the credibility and validity of sources on this topic, and its potential relationship to racism and reverse racism.
Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Intro is okay.  Next, please :) Teji 04:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see what User:Teji has to say first.  He/she seems to have very strong editorial opinions on the article.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, it's me.  Forgot to log in.  Thanks for the nod. Teji 04:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: WTF is "reverse racism"??? Move to strike that meaningless bit. 217.206.93.34 13:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we just get rid of that last sentence?  What do you think, Teji?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking out reverse racism suffices. Teji 05:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok, one thing at a time. 

message: Race oriented pornographyy -> Race oriented pornography. Can someone make the change for poor old anonymous? --212.139.23.66 08:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will correct spelling mistakes once we reach consensus.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, feel free to contribute to the ongoing discussion in the above section. Teji 19:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in article, "Use in pornography" section 

message: In rereading this article, this section is pretty outrageous:
Citations:
The only citations that assert this are two college newspaper editorials.
There are zero facts, except the one anecdotal incident the editorials complain about.  The incident isn't even officially related to an Asian fetish except as an assertion of the commentators opinions (I should add that they are not criminologists or experts in any field that would make them credible).  It's circular, the only way to make the claim is with opinions, but in order to support it, the same opinions are used.
Claims:
The claims are non-majority views (the hint is the fact that activists make this claim).  Coupled with the lack of substatiation (no hard statistics which the crime against asian women page says there isn't any anyway) and attribution (only student opinion pages), these claims should not be represented on wikipedia (see the wikipedia policy quote in the restructuring section).
Example: some Asian American authors and activists claim that the proclivity has dangerous implications
The "authors and activists" here are student opinion columnists.
The claim is asserted by activists, not supported by experts and data as it should be.
The "dangerous implications" are pure speculation.
I'm sorry, but this section must be removed; it's far too outlandish to keep.  I await its defence, but the defenders will really have to work miracles on this one. Teji 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Asian Fetish as Cause of Crime 

message: Recent portrayals of Asians in the American media, in some cases, have avoided many of the stereotypes of the past (see Ethnic stereotypes in American media and Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians), and the increased availability of media directly from Asia makes the stereotypical basis that would support an Asian fetish less relevant than in the past. However, many note that Asian-Americans in every day situations are not being portrayed in these foreign media, adding to the perception that they are foreigners, even when they are not. The bulk of media directly from Asia tends to be martial arts related. Some believe that these foreign media reinforce the stereotypes that others claim that they are eliminating, or create new ones.[citation needed]
See Ethnic stereotypes in American media and Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians''
I know what you're going to say, "Asian fetishes are based on stereotypes, this section is about stereotypes of Asian people, ergo it belongs here."  The problem is the premise that Asian fetishes are based on stereotypes.  Remember how we made it clear in the first part of the article about how this is only one point of view on the topic?  Well, because someone can go to the article on stereotypes if one wants, it's really not necessary to put this section in.   Furthermore, it doesn't use a verifiable source or even really address the connection between Asian fetish and stereotypes using a any good source (whereas Hwang is a verifiable source.)  So really, this section doesn't belong here, nor is it even credible enough even if it did. Teji 20:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stereotypical media portrayals section is not appropriate in this article 

message: All of the racism mentioned in this article is presumed to be against Asians.  There is a flip-side to Asian fetish that is a preference for a race other than one's own, implying a lacking in the opposite gender of one's own race (e.g. white women).  As this is a real phenomenon that is affecting causing hurt in same-gender couples, it seems necessary to address its conseqences within the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.2.135.46 (talk • contribs).
:The hope is that we won't be addressing any consequences that aren't well-documented.  This is problem, allowing for poorly cited, unsubstantioned, unattributed comments allows anyone to simply use the article to voice their views and concerns (which is of course fine on the discussion page).  We should really just remove all material that isn't well-documented. 144.81.32.187 20:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Affect on those of the same race 

message: I tried with others for most of last year to bring some rationaltiy to this article, a lot of editors put in a lot of work, but in the end the topic is so controversal and the people involved in this so closed minded that this article cannot evolve (editors like me just give up and drift away) it is instead in constant revolution, just like graffit on top of graffiti. As far as I can tell none of the article from last year is still present, at some point it has been totally replaced and by the look of it gone backward drastically.
There is no article here, just a slanging, shouting match.
--Hontogaichiban 03:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be euthanased and here's why 

message: This article needs to be edited with a meat cleaver.
Uncited material has been removed, as per Wikipedia policy at WP:V and WP:RS. An unnecessary repetition of the exact same quote from David Henry Hwang has been removed, as per the Undue Weight section of WP:NPOV. Weasel worded statements have been removed. Do not reinsert any of this material without proper citations in accordance with Wikipedia policy. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 01:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you at least read the discussion before deleting (you deleted the rewrite). 144.81.32.187 21:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have personally read the various version of that section, and as I've said before, it's a WP:Original research strung together by sources that don't actually talk about Asian fetish itself.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing

message: The whole section is based on weasel words and trends extrapolated from what two people feels. The last sentence is especially strange: In the past, racial supremacists opposed such relationships (now they don't?), though today in the United States, critics of interracial dating are sometimes from non-White ethnic groups (and that never happened before?) Kaitenbushi 02:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then consider cleaning up the section instead of blanking it out.  I've re-added it without the specific sentences you've objected to.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I should have discussed it before deleting it. But here are the reasons why I think the whole section should be deleted: First paragraph ("Many object...and without reason."): Who are many? Where are the sources? Second paragraph ("It is also the basis of angst...social disapproval of an Asian fetish."): The conclusion that the term Asian Fetish leads to angst is based on personal testemonies by two people. Hardly statistically valid. And original research. Third paragraph: (Many people consider...by stigmatizing them): Again, who are many and where are the sources? Kaitenbushi 09:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that the section is lacking sources and is using some weasel words, but the section is also very important in bringing NPOV balance to the article.  What we need is some referencing work, not deletion.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that this article has been through some hard edit wars, and that people would like to have a little rest while the article is in a "balanced" state. But I still have some problems with the wait-and-see approach: 1) Using original research to balance out an article is not WP policy.  2)  "The other side" also contains a lot of original research/unsourced claims. If balance is the worry, let's cut on both sides. 3) If we say "Let's wait and see what happens", there is a great chance that nothing will ever happen. 4) There might be no material out there to back up the claims. But I don't want to start any edit war. I suggest we flag the section appropriately, wait two weeks and, if nothing has happened, remove original research. In the meantime I might go through other sections of the article and identify problems, of which there are many. Honestly, I would say it is better to cut this article to the bone and end up with a stub, rather than this collection of unverified claims. Just my two cents, though. Kaitenbushi 10:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, I'm pretty sure if we spend some time on it, we could find sources for that section so that it doesn't look like original research.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Use as a condemnation of interracial relationships" deleted

message: Are Sheridan Prasso, Vanessa Hue, and Tracy Quan good sources? I'm not sure somebody new to the article would be familiar with them. Lindentree 03:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why didn't you mention that Phoebe Eng, Vicky Nam, and Erika Kim are bad sources? It seems that you are an WM/AF relationship supporter, since you didn't want to delete Phoebe Eng, Vicky Nam, and Erika Kim (even these sources just as bad). You seem to be secretly attempting to remove the ideas made by anti-intermarriage advocates named Sheridan Prasso, Vanessa Hue, and Tracy Quan, from this article. Secretly trying to make this article biased toward supporting intermarriage by deleting the detractors (Sheridan Prasso, Vanessa Hue, and Tracy Quan) will violate NPOV, since all the sources are just as bad. Yes, there are some non-Asians attracted to Asian women because they have stereotypes of them such as submissiveness, intelligent, and their physical features. Attempting (or allegedly attempting) to disclaim that all non-Asians that are attracted to Asian women do not have these sexual stereotypes of them, just because you (appear to) do not, is arrogant, ignorant, egotistical, original research and violates the NPOV policy. 
71.175.32.20 20:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't the one who cited any of these authors originally, nor do I have any real opinion on their respective viewpoints. My concern was that there is no background information available on the authors I mentioned, which makes it more difficult to assess their views. Since you seem to be more familiar with them, perhaps you could add this information to the article. Lindentree 07:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hm, I added some context for Tracy Quan, but upon examination of her reference, she doesn't seem to be an "anti-intermarriage advocate". Quite the opposite, in fact.... Vanessa Hue's argument and background aren't clear to me either. I don't know anything about Sheridan Prasso, besides the fact that she wrote The Asian Mystique. Lindentree 08:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Context for sources

message: Yo Lindentree while i'm on break could you check out this jorunal: Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology and do an index search on your citations network in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. I suspect that specialist don't call the phenomeon we know off "Asian Fetish," if this is true, we need to find the technical term for this phenomenon. I'm goign to contact the DGS of my alma mater with the issue and hopefully he'll point me to some furtiive ground. WikiIsforLamers 06:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Journal Article Discussions

message: Do any of the editors of this article have access to Asian American studies papers or books?  The sources on this article seem to just be opinion pieces on College newspapers and on Asian-American blogs.  In order to improve this article, I highly suggest that both sides on this issue find real studies on this topic.  I tried to locate studies on the issue, but the best I could find were papers discussing how different racial groups ranked others with regard to general attractiveness.  I'll check back in on this in a couple of weeks.  I hope you guys improve your article and cease with the personal attacks.  --CommonSense101 01:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got one book, a history of Asian American women, but I can't find an online version to cite. The only journal articles I've found in my school's databases are only tangentially related. Lindentree 06:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Using Legitimate Sources