Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 7

message: ... are discussed in this archive.  That issue is closed, and if you wish to continue the discussion, please do it elsewhere. -- Gnetwerker 02:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of Physical anthropology and testosterone sections

message: I would like to propose that we formulate a plan for upgrading this article.  Here are some factors that I think would be important:
# Establish and enforce the norm that Wikipedia policies and guidelines will be upheld in the article and on the talk page.  In particular (WP:NPOV; WP:NOR; WP:CIV; WP:NPA; WP:Consensus, and WP:MoS must be respected. 
# Carry out a thorough edit of the article (WP:HEP), guided by the above policies and guidelines.
# Ensure that all material (other than generally accepted information) is supported by approprate references.   
# Establish that major new additions will be discussed, and agreed to, on the Talk page prior to their introduction to the article.
Please feel free to add to this list and provide comments, as appropriate.  I volunteer to work on the edit.  Sunray 22:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue is something that is discussed at length in scholarly journals, if not the popular press. I think the most important thing that can be done is source the various opinions and take out all the weasel words. PhatJew 12:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, agreed. Sunray 07:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plan for improving this article

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: Since there was little or no support for my rewrite, I have made some changes, not intended to change the meaning of the page, but to remove obvious POV wording and phraseology.  I removed the list of "Sex Crimes", while retaining the section and some references, even though I do not think this section belongs here at all.  It is still my opinion that much of this article is original research and what is not is uncited and not verifiable.  -- Gnetwerker 19:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sexual crimes page has already been discussed extensively: Talk:Asian_fetish/Archive_3#The_title_of_the_.22Social_consequences.22_section. You are the only person who seems to think that it should not be kept. --Wzhao553 19:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not an accurate statement.  The discussion you point to is a short one, and regards the title of the section, not the appropriateness of a long(ish) list of specific crimes to make a point.  The reason I don't believe it belongs it that it is, by its own admission, anecdotal.  Also, none of the crimes (other than those retained) have citations.  Nonetheless, I kept the section, and rendered it more NPOV by shortening it.  Otherwise it had undue weight. -- Gnetwerker 19:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: All the cases in the section have references at the end of each paragraph. Maybe you just didn't see them. --Wzhao553 19:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Gnetwerker, I strongly disagree with your edits of the sex crimes section.  That section is listed under "social consequences of asian fetish" and it's relationship to the core topic is clearly defined.  Each crime has a citation/reference and each crime is a clear example of a crime perpetrated against Asian women solely because the perpetrator had a fixation on Asian women.  These perpetrators quite literally had "an Asian fetish".  I don't see how it can get any clearer than that.  In the future, I think it would be nice if you discussed these kind of changes with the community before taking it upon yourself to make such a drastic change. OneViewHere 20:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is self-avowedly anecdotal.  While it may be clear that there is an "Asian fetish", it is not a clinical diagnosis, and five crimes listed does not make it a trend, or we would have "blonde fetish", a "short woman fetish", and a "big breasts fetish" listing.  There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that "Asian fetish" leads to sex crimes against Asians in higher numbers than would be indicated by their natural occurence in the population.  Furthermore, when I suggested the defining language that "Asian fetish" could be defined as "an abnormal attraction" to Asians, I was angrily shouted down by Wzhao553, despite this being, in essence, the textbook definition of a fetish.  So you can't have it both ways: is it an abnormal attraction, sufficient (e.g.) to incite crime (a la pedophilia), or is it simply an "unusual" attraction, labelling an interracial relationship that some parts of society frown upon?  Come on, make a consistent argument.  -- Gnetwerker 22:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  P.s. -- There is no section on "social consequences of asian fetish".  "Sex crimes" is a top-level section, without additional context. -- Gnetwerker 23:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, Gnetwerker has not only repeatedly admitted that he knows nothing about the subject but has also shown complete disregard and hostility toward the actual cited research and suggestions for introducing it into this article, despite being given numerous opportunities and suggestions for increasing his knowledge by me and Durova. Is it too much to ask that people making major changes to an article actually know something about the topic? One can see why it would be difficult for one to take anything that he writes too seriously. --Wzhao553 20:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1

message: I would like to mention that the edit wars have made this article almost completly impossible to read. The grammer, syntax, and diction have submerged whatever the original point was in very deep and murky waters. The article sounds like Pseudo-academic babble from a graduate student for whom English is a second language. Actually after reading it, I have less of an idea of what "Asian Fetish" is than I gathered when I heard the name. Fix it or delete it. At this rate deletion seems the better option. 68.254.195.210 02:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is going on with this article?

message: As this box points out:
citations in Wikipedia need to be from reliable sources and not from primary sources.  Taking the second point first, it says in WP:RS that: We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication. See Wikipedia:No original research.  So what is a credible publication?  WP:RS goes on to say:
::Partisan political and religious sources should be treated with caution, although political bias is not in itself a reason not to use a source. Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites ... should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources i.e. in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group, but even then should be used with great caution, and should not be relied upon as a sole source.
Whereas credible secondary sources:
* There is separate editorial oversight. This means that they have different employers, or different editors (but not necessarily different publishers).
* Have not collaborated in their efforts.
* May have taken their own look at the available primary sources and used their own judgment in evaluating them.
In this article, the Reference section is mostly primary sources, but some of them credible academic journals.  However, many of the internal citations in the article are from ColorQ.org, ModelMinority.com, AsiaFinest.com, AsiaWhite.org[, and AsianMediaWatchdog.com.  I submit that these sites, by Wikipedia policy, should not be used for citations of facts.  I think some of their uses in this article are appropriate -- if attributed correctly.  If someone were to make (e.g.) a viable claim that ModelMinority represents a view ascribed to by a broad cross-section of asians, then a statement "According to ModelMinority.com, many Asians believe ..." might be appropriate (depending on the context).  A major part of cleaning up this article is to add appropriate citations,  or remove the parts that are unsupported. -- Gnetwerker 02:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Credible Citation Sources

message: It is leftist trash as usual.I will propose it for deletion !80.138.177.147 15:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Delete this biased pseudo-scientific ranting article ! 

message: After note#5, the note/ref numbers are mixed up. The notes after #7 don't even point to anything. Can someone clean this up please? Infinity0 talk 16:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has got to go down in the history books of bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. The sooner the better. -Will Beback 11:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The notes and references 

message: I question the inclusion of this movie in the section "Stereotypes of Asian Women" as an example of an unmotivated White-Asian romance.  As I recall, the romance that developed between Nathan Algren and Taka occurred only after several months of Algren living with Taka, who was initially quite hostile to him but reciprocates his feelings after he repeatedly demonstrates local values.  Since the premise of unmotivated White-Asian romance is that race is sufficient and the participant's characters irrelevant, The Last Samurai really isn't a good example. JJ 18:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. -Will Beback 22:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Last Samurai 

message: Physical attraction between the two attractive characters including racial attraction according to Hartmann laws makes it a very motivated love.Additionally, Algren adores the traditional Samurais knights fighting for old values in contrast to the American slaughtering of Indians making Algren depressive and an alcoholic.The previous comment downplays the importance of race (of course,as usual!)."The Last Samurai" will be included again !80.138.188.125 22:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous comment is leftist and wrong 

message: 80.138.188.125 22:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's more important for 60% of the vote to be respected. -Will Beback 22:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  40% of the votes are not respected - include serious anthropology again ! 

message: First, let me say that I think it is wholly appropriate to have a WP page dedicated to the academic research on the Asian form of "Racial Fetishism" (which appears to have little to do with the popular use of the phrase for white guys who sexually "target" Asian women).  Second, I also have no objection to a page explaining the popular sense of the term in an even-handed and encyclopedic way.
The serious problems with this page, IMO, are that the two of these positions are mixed together, and also that much of the page, if it isn't directly POV itself (I think much is), is reporting on the POV of various groups, and doing so using primary sources.
I really am not trying to either pick a fight with the historical editors of this page, nor am I trying to claim that Westerners/Occidentals/Caucasions/Whites don't stereotype and stigmatize minorities, including Asians.  But much of this page is so far away from what a seriously NPOV reference work would include as to be embarrasing to WP.
I don't know what to do about it -- the argument (leaving out the insane anon's rantings) seems to be intractable.  I will propose again that we split this page into "Asian fetish (theory)" and "Asian fetish controversy" or some such.  In the former ("theory") we could include the information that is sourced in the reputable, (mostly) academic journals and other publications.  In the second, we could report on the controversy itself and include some references to the (potentially legit!) POV of the various interest groups (like www.modelminority.com).
Otherwise, I think this page will permanently stay in a state of near edit war.  -- Gnetwerker 23:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Lengthy text removed." -Will Beback 02:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV, Meta-POV & A proposal 

message: I have rewritten the beginning of the sex crimes section, and changed the heading to Positive aspects of the Asian fetish/Sex Crimes.  Please discuss these changes here.  Reversions without discussion on this talk page are strongly frowned upon. --Xyzzyplugh 03:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two points. #1: Are you German? (This is a serious question.) #2: In general, if you want to criticize a point that is made in a section, then please place them after the original point is actually made, or, better yet, move it to the criticism section. From what you've written, I think it'd be better as a subsection of the criticisms section. --Wzhao553 03:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made improvements to the Sex Crimes section 

message: You will be happy to know that the paedomorphosis paragraph has been reinserted into this article by Gnetwerker and Xyzzyplugh. Everyone knows that I initially supported inclusion of this material into  the article, was later overruled by a vote, and that I of course continue to have no objections to the inclusion of this material now. --Wzhao553 08:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the benefit of anyone reading this -- I disavow Wzhao553's statment.  A look at the edit log will show only that I explained the word "paedomorphous".  I do not condone its inclusion.  It appeared to be sourced, but if it should be deleted, please do so. -- Gnetwerker 08:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To the anonymous German editor

message: This article is ludicrous, especially the "Sex Crimes" section.  I remember a case in, I believe, Colorado where five male Asian-American college students kidnapped, raped, and tortured a white girl because they wanted to know "what it was like" to have sex with a white woman.  I would suggest putting a section about this, and similar crimes, on every page concerning Asian-American men until this article is cleaned up.  
:I'd advise against doing that (WP:POINT). --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 12:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is appalling (and was even worse once), but it survived an AfD (which, sadly, tells you somthing about the AfD process). --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 12:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  100% Eye Rolling Guaranteed! 

message: I have posted this page to WP:RFC -- here is the discussion page: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Asian_fetish. -- Gnetwerker 08:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment Requested 

message: The truth cannot be abolished.And I insist on inserting the whole old section.80.138.188.86 17:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you , Wzhao533 for informing me on the inclusion of our thoughts again. 

message: Gnetwerker and Xyzzyplugh finally included statements on  racial paedomorphosis (see history). Due to the 40% of voters and Gnetwerker and Xyzzyplugh recent consensus to include it , I re-edited  our very fine anthro section. Any further summarizing  seems not appropriate due to the huge lack of knowledge in even American scholars  of anthropology (e.g.wiki user Prof. Steve Rubenstein,Athens , Ohio).80.138.168.9 11:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had nothing to do with that paragraph except explaining the term.  Do not include me as a supporter.  I think that 90% of this article is unsourced, not-WP:V, WP:NOR BS and that 80.138.x.x should be banned. -- Gnetwerker 18:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus reached on article discussing  racial paedomorphosis ! 

message: After skimming through the talk, I am under the impression that the inclusion of the "sex crimes" section is under dispute.
The title of the article is "asian fetish". Unless the sex crime is directly related to a fetish, and not just a "normal sex crime" (please don't think I'm an asshole for using that phrase, I have nothing better), then it shouldn't be included in the article, since it has nothing to do with "Asian fetish". Infinity0 talk 19:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck, and I support you.  As I'm sure you know, I have tried five different wordings and intermediate measures to improve this section, and User:Wzhao553 has reverted every one -- he will not allow removal of the list of specific crimes, won't discuss the specific criticisms of the section here in Talk, and has now stooped to calling me a racist. I also ask that you look at the RfC I posted above and weigh in on the subject there. -- Gnetwerker 20:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: Wzhao553, I am not going to bother to respond to your imprecations of my character or credibility, and I will try not to be baited by your outrageous condescension.  "It has already been explained to you" -- good grief, get a grip -- you have your POV and explanations, and ignore anything else.  You claimed (in an edit summary that "everyone" agrees with the inclusion of the sex crimes section except me -- clearly untrue.  You have, again and again and again edited this article to include unsourced, unverifiable information, when you do provide citations, they are often of primary sources, or you misrepresent citations that are (e.g.) op-ed pieces in newspapers, so they are primary sources while superficially looking like secondary sources.  Other of your edits include citations that do not bear on the topic -- often "Asian fetish" is not even mentioned in the referenced articles.  From your edits it appears that you feel passionately about this topic, and you have a crystal clear POV.  Ironically, I mostly agree with your point of view, but do not believe that POV -- yours, mine, or anyone else's -- belongs in Wikipedia.  And so when you call me a racist and associate me with the Asian fetish anon spammer, I can only think that it is yet another manifestation of your biased editing.  As a result, it is completely impossible to take you seriously.  Your bias is so clear it makes WP:AGF nearly impossible.
You make many specific accusations above, supported by quotes often taken out of context or misconstrued, and facts either not in evidence or actually wrong:
*"Also, none of the crimes (other than those retained) have citations." -- none of the crimes have (or had) citations that make them relevant to "asian fetish".  No one is disputing that the crimes took place, only that their inclusion is relevant to asian fetishism.  As another commentator pointed out, shall we add lists of "counter-asian-fetish" crimes?
*You say "It was explained to you by Heaven's knight that ..." a statement was clear and not poorly worded, except that Heaven's knight is another zealot, probably a sock puppet (one of yours?) and has not edited any WP pages other than this one in his 19 days on WP.  I generally don't listen to sock puppets.
*You say I "made a ridiculous statement that I should not be writing because you believed that English was not my first language." -- This is an out-and-out lie, as anyone who bothers to look above to the reference section will see.  If you were offended by my suggestion, I apologize.  However, many Wikipedia editors are non-native English speakers, and it has been commented by many others that the overall writing quality of this article is low.  With respect, it continues to be my opinion that the quality of your writing is low, regardless of your ethnic or national background.
*You say "if someone admits to having a fixation on Asian women, and a fixation on Asian women is an Asian fetish, then how could these crimes not be related to Asian fetish? -- the answer to this is the reason you don't understand the objections being made.  If someone murders a blonde woman, and says later that they have a fixation on blonde women, does that mean that there is a "blonde fetish"?  If six different men murder blonde women because of a fixation or fetish, does that indicate a societal trend?  In both cases, the clear answer is "no".  This section, the inclusion of the list of crimes, your deletion of the text explaining the complete lack of any statistical correlation, and your movement to a different section of crime statistics showing that Asians are less likely to be victims -- these all indicate that you are blind to any argument that disagrees with you.
*With regard to this article I said "the real article addresses violence against women in general", and you ask "did you even bother to read the article? Every single example cited is about APA women" (and more).  In fact, the article itself says (among other things):  "Disturbing reports from our nation’s campuses show that violence against women in general and APA women in particular is an ongoing problem that we all, men as well as women, must address." (direct quote from article).  Since the article is from a primary source -- i.e. a special-interest Asian-American women's site, of course it primarily addresses Asian women, but your use of it to support a "diagnosis" of Asian fetish is counter to the article's intent, as it also says:  "Whether called a fetish, sexual harassment or sex crime, it shows an attitude of treating all APAs as the same and as less than human."  I won't suggest that you didn't read the article, but rather that your POV blinded you to its actual content, which neither opposes your position nor supports it.  You say this makes it "very difficult not to believe that you were arguing against me about an article which you had not even read." when in fact you clearly do not understand the concept of WP:NOR, WP:CITE, primary sources,  and WP:V.  Instead of attacking me, why don't you defend your positions without using primary sources.
*Finally, you pull a random intermediate edit out of a revert war, and call it my final edit?  Here was/is my attempt at compromise with you on the "Sex Crimes" section: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asian_fetish&diff=40979059&oldid=40977515 .  This attempted to retain references the the crimes committed, retains all of your citations, however primary, but identifies the primary-sourced beliefs as such, rather than as WP:V fact (which they are not -- they may be your belief and mine, but that does not make them WP:V).  You say that I "removed any details about the sexual crimes" -- yet I linked to WP articles describing them, and I retained your cites!  You then complain that I retained the discussion on paedomorphosis.  I honestly do not knnow why that you so badly want to tar me with that.  As you note, I voted against it, I disavowed any connection to it, and you admit in your note that "a look at the talk log will already show that you did not condone its inclusion."  But then you go on to say that "it appears that you believe that discussing a section which you already voted against is more valuable than the discussion of the point of view of Asian American women." -- what a bizarre suggestion!  I don't want to discuss paedomorphism.  And I only want this page to be WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.
You conclude by saying "This, you must understand, has left many of us very confused about what you actually think, and makes it very easy to dismiss many of your valid points as the rantings of someone who does not know what he is doing."  This is perhaps the root of the problem.  This page has become so contentious that you (and others) assume a "if you're not for us, you're against us" frame of mind.  I am neither for you nor against you.
I will admit here and now that I chose this page as an experiment.  I've been on Wikipedia since 2002, but stuck to fields where I am an expert (and I mean by profession, not just something I think I know).  But after a big edit war on one of those pages (where it could be -- and was -- claimed that I had a POV, I wanted to pick a controversial page where I could reasonably claim to have absolutely no POV, and see if I could bring light to the argument.
This experience is the record of my failure to do so.  At every turn I have tried to steer this page toward what I think a reasonable, educated person might expect to find in an encyclopedia, and supporting verifiable work, citations, neutral point of view, and so on.  By doing these things, you and others have concluded that I am a partisan in favor of a particular position, or that I am too stupid to understand your academic arguments, or that I am a racist, or God knows what.
This page and this argument is a signal not only of my failure here, but of a significant failure of Wikipedia -- the hijacking of pages by zealots, or people who have been turned into zealots by the (inverse) zealotry of others.  You, Wzhao553, are (on this topic) a zealot.  There is no way around it -- you are fanatical about this topic and your defense of your POV here.
You seem to want me to "fess up to errors" I have made.  OK, mea culpa.  I make errors all the time.  My early readings of  the abstruse academic literature of racial fetishism were too cursory.  While I received a liberal education, and am married to someone who wrote a PhD thesis on post-modern literary theory, I failed to spend the time understand the nuance of the academic side of the arguments.  Did I once fail to remove the ridiculous "paedo" section when I might have?  Regrettably, yes (though only once).  And yes, I erred in assuming that your poor writing style was indicative of national origin rather than simply, well, poor writing (oh, and I made a typographical error while criticizing you).  Indeed, I am chock full of errors (go ahead, take that out of context as well!)  But my biggest mistake has been wasting my time arguing with you.  As George Bernard Shaw said: "Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig enjoys it." -- Gnetwerker 00:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to [[User:Wzhao553|Wzhao553]]

message: *The term was coined and is used by Asian American authors to describe a form of racism and sexism which they believe they experience, and is not generally used outside of Asian American literature.
Do we know who coined the term? -Will Beback 04:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the answer to that. That's one of the most important questions that I've tried to answer, but so far I haven't found anything. It seems to have first appeared in books around the mid-90's. I personally believe that Frank Chin and Jeffrey Paul Chan certainly would have used it in their 1972 article "Racist love" if the term existed then, so my assertion is that it was probably coined sometime in the 80's. This definitely needs more research. --Wzhao553 05:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me clarify myself on that one. The phrase "Asian fetish for..." (as well as "Chinese fetish for..." and "Japanese fetish for...") has been used before the 90's to denote a cultural fetish that Asians have (e.g., Chinese fetish for footbinding). The shift in usage toward the meaning of "a fetish for Asians" appears to have caught on in writing around the 90's. --Wzhao553 05:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The testosterone poisoning article may be something of a model here.  It tracks the genesis and spread of a in prominent publications.  While that and Schadenfreude have a stronger linguistic focus than this article, I think a section that tracks the term's genesis in a referenced manner would be a good addition. Durova 05:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coined 

message: In light of Wzhao553's stipulation that this article represents a specific POV of Asian-American social activists (one with which I sympathize), but also in light of the centrality of WP:NPOV on Wikipedia, I propose that this article's name be changed to (something like) "Asian fetish in Asian-American activism".  While the coinage note goes a some way to explaining the obvious bias in the article to the unsuspecting reader, placing it right up there in the title would be much better.
Failing this, I wonder if Wzhao553, Will Beback, Mel Etitis, ChildeRolandofGilead and perhaps others would join a "friendly" suite to ArbCom to resolve the apparent conflict here between WP:NPOV and the charge of WP:NPOV#Anglo-American_focus. -- Gnetwerker 06:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no confidence in the Mediation Cabal (to put it no more strongly), but an RfC might be helpful. As I've said, I'd be happy to see an AfD, in fact. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 18:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Name Change or Arbitration?

message: I propose we bring this article into line with Wikipedia's similar articles on the Black fetish, White fetish, Mexican fetish, Armenian fetish, and all the rest. I also propose that we bring this article in line with Wikipedia's articles on its opposite: Asiaphobia. 
Here is what a search on these related topics brings: "No page with that title exists."
I further propose that we bring this article up to the standards of real encyclopedias on these subjects. 
Here is what you find in a real encyclopedia when you search "Asian fetish": 
Search Results > asian fetish   	No results found. 
http://www.encyclopedia.com/SearchResults.aspx?Q=asian%20fetish
Improve Wikipedia. Improve this article the only possible way-- DELETE it. 
Those who miss an opportunity to perpetuate racial stereotypes and hatred on Wikipedia by masking them in pseudointellectual babble can easily find find many, many other outlets on the Internet with lower standards than Wikipedia should have. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.192.63.31 (talk • contribs).
:Your comments and contributions would be more quickly and easily accepted if you were to get a Wikipedia account.  -- Gnetwerker 23:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's improve this article, and Wikipedia

message: This page is over 80Kb long and probably needs to be refactored again.  I probably shouldn't do it.  Anyone? -- Gnetwerker 07:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Refactoring

message: There is a new citation style, described here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php , that I think we should adopt here.  It puts all the references inline, and I think wold resolve the current mess with out-of-kilter references.  Please discuss. -- Gnetwerker 23:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New citation style

message: The text says, "In the popular sense, Asian fetishism is a strong and irrational devotion to the stereotypes of Asian women." Is that for real? You mean all this hot air has been stirred up because of nothing more compelling than the analogous attraction of a social climber to the idea that, e.g., "All of Paris is glamorous. Simply glamorous, darling."  Stereotypes can be initially compelling sometimes, I guess. If organic food is trendy this month I can imagine some people getting wound up about it. But if they then go out and sample some non-gourmet organic food I find it hard to believe that just the stereotype promoted by Guru Mahanaga or whoever could maintain any enthusiasm or produce any prolonged social effect.  I'm having trouble thinking of any case in which a stereotype that isn't just a rationalization of an underlying pathology has had a long-term career in the real world.  So what is the sentence quoted actually trying to depict? What happens if everybody recites a million times, "All Asian women are diminutive," and then goes on a blind date with Yao Ming's female cousin? They go to the parade and he says, "Let me give you a ride on my  shoulders so you can see over the crowd!" Really?  I don't think so. (She ain't heavy, Father O'Mally. She ain't my sister neither. But she's still got 'er feet on the ground!")  金 (Kim) 03:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another confusion? 

message: The anonymous user who comments above that (he) "considers it my duty ... to endlessly re-edit the anthropological section" is nothing other than a vandal, who continuously adds anti-Semitic and racist material to this and other pages.  He originates from a particular German ISP -- please join me in encouraging the admins to block this range of IPs to prevent him from disrupting Wikipedia and wasting everyone's time.  The relevant posting is on vandalism in progress. -- Gnetwerker 18:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please help add all his IPs in User:Infinity0/Vandal report. -- infinity0 19:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't appear to have taken (or maybe it was reversed).  The vandal just posted from 80.138.193.176 which is in the /18 subnet he's been posting from.  Sigh. (And I don't really mind being called a leftist computer scientist, though I did take some anthropology in college :-)). -- Gnetwerker 23:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Asian fetish Vandal

message: Sorry to be harsh, but this article seems to have becomes so embroiled in dispute that the strains of accommodation have rendered it almost entirely unintelligible, incredibly convoluted, awkwardly otiose in sections (particularly the academic use).  The POV disputes strike me at this point irrelevant - as it stands this article is of value to no one outside of the contributors themselves whose internecine bickering has obviated any larger encyclopedic value. Eusebeus 19:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Flaws - An Outside View 

message: We are repeatedly told that this article does not refer to healthy Asian/white relationships. 
To repeat Wzhao553's 4-point definition of the "Asian fetish"
"A person (say, a white male) has an Asian fetish if:
# he has an intense sexual attraction to Asian women;
# he treats all Asian women as objects;
# he believes that Asian women are submissive, promiscuous, etc., and that any Asian woman who is not is a rare exception to the rule; and
# he cannot or will not form healthy relationships with women who are either not Asian or who are Asian but do not fit the stereotypes."
It is emphasized that all four points must be present for an "Asian fetish" to exist. 
The urbandictionary.com site is used as a reference for one of these "Slang terms," so let's look at what it has to say about others. 
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rice+king
Rice King 
A white male who only dates Asian women. 
Breed is marked by very distinct characteristics, including monochromatism of hair and skin, pronounced Adam's apple, lanky physique, complete lack of fashion sense, and inability to carry on a conversation with any woman who has her own opinions and is capable of expressing them.
Joe Manning at Stanford is a card-carrying Rice King: he imported a wife from Shang-hai.
Setting aside the obvious racial stereotyping, and (apparently) personal attack-- It is obvious this refers simply to a white male attracted to Asian women. Only point 1 of the 4-point "Asian fetish" definition. 
rice chaser
Strictly speaking, a person who seeks romantic relations with Asians. 
Cmmmonly, a short or scrawny white male lacking self-esteem and/or assertiveness who seeks power in interpersonal relationships by attempting to date Asian females whom he perceives to be submissive and obedient.
Also, a white male with a prurient but ironically inaccurate fascination with what he perceives as exotic.
Man, Michael is such a fucking rice chaser -- he keeps going to Thailand to get laid.
Again, cutting aside the snideness, this definition is basically, a white man attracted to Asian women. Stereotypes, racial and otherwise, are then applied to him without any basis-- scrawny, lacking in self-esteem, etc., a condescending explanation is given for his attraction to Asian women. Finally, it is implied that white men attracted to Asian women are frequenters of prostitutes in Asia. (Some, no doubt are. But no mention is made of frequenters of same-race prostitutes (Asian or white). The obvious point of mentioning this is to demean Asian/white relationships by bringing them down to a prostitute/john level.)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ccb
CCB 
(N.) CCB - "Cracker Chasing Bitch"
An acronym used to designate those women (usually of the asian persuasion) who prefer to choose caucasian males and/or females as sexual/relationship partners.
Daaaamn fool, look at them gold-diggin' ccb's, all up on that cracka's nuts like cheese on pizza.
(This definition is linked in the "Asian fetish" article.)
It seems obvious to me this term refers simply to Asian women who are attracted to white men, hence only point 1 of the 4-part "Asian fetish" definition. If it refers to points 2-4, where? 
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sellout
7. Sellout
(1) A person who dates interracially or conforms only to affairs of another race because, they believe thiers is inferior, or for selfish personal gain.
Again, simply a person involved in an interracial relationship, with demeaning, insulting reasons applied by someone who doesn't approve. 
Asiaphilia (undefined) 
asiaphile 
Typically a fat white loser in his 50's who trolls around South-East Asia for a slim, submissive young May Ping Pang who wants him for his money and will want to cement their relationship with a child ASAP.
Look at that sweaty, red-faced asiaphile, he can't get a quality woman at home so he goes to Bangkok instead
Need I even comment? 
:It occurs to me that this one probably does deserve a comment. The obviously crude stereotype led me to just ignore it as unworthy of a Wikipedia reference. But since this site is being used here, we should look at it. 
:Unlike the above definitions, the white male who travels to Asia to engage in prostitution obviously is not someone involved in a normal relationship with an Asian person. So finally we get past point #1. So is the "fat white loser" using prostitutes in Thailand the subject of this "Asian fetish" article? Not if we apply all 4 points of the "Asian fetish" definition. 
:Point #2 in the "Asian fetish" definition applies here ("he treats all Asian women as objects"). Though "all" Asian women is questionable. How do we know he treats all Asian women as objects? And, back to #1-- How we know "he has an intense sexual attraction to Asian women" in particular, rather than just engaging in prostitution? True, he's travelling to Asia for this purpose, but how do we know he hasn't engaged prostitutes at home? Data is needed. 
:Point #3-- "he believes that Asian women are submissive, promiscuous, etc., and that any Asian woman who is not is a rare exception to the rule" is again conjecture. Do all men who engage Asian prostitutes believe these stereotypes about all Asian women? If not, how many do? 
:Finally, Point #4-- "he cannot or will not form healthy relationships with women who are either not Asian or who are Asian but do not fit the stereotypes." Again, how do we know this about any particular "fat white loser" who frequents Asian prostitutes? Without real statistics, this is pure guess-work.Human Fetishist 03:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Slang terms

message: I'm responding to the RfC. 
Like the previous section entitled An Outsider View, I agree the article is flawed. I have never heard about this term before. Reading the lead section is just confusing for me. Please read Wikipedia:Lead section. This article appears to misuse the lead section. 
When a good lead section has been written, I'll read the rest of the article.
Fred-Chess 22:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An outsider view II 

message: I have put a second attempt at a rewrite at Asian fetish/rewrite.  Feel free to hack on it.  If it gets sufficient attention, maybe it could replace the current version.  Its primary attribute is that it deliberately divides the three senses of the term: popular, activist, and academic.  I am sure that it will please no one, so maybe that makes it an improvment :-) -- Gnetwerker 03:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: p.s. -- I still think there could be three pages Asian fetish pornography (probably just a part of Sexual fetishism or some such), Racial fetish, and Asian fetish in Asian-American social commentary.  -- Gnetwerker 03:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another attempt at a rewrite 

message: On 27 February I proposed we refactor this talk page, as it had grown to 82Kb.  It is now over 150Kb, and really needs to be refactored and archived.  If you have a problem with this, speak now. -- Gnetwerker 08:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring (again)