Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 9

message: I removed Godfrey Daniel's new addition regarding muscle mass.  He references Steve Sailor as a source, who is a well known white supremacist and racist:  
http://www.geocities.com/sailerfraud/ir.html
A little bit about Steve Sailor:
Once of his most (in)famous works for the National Review which boosted his publicity was the 1997 article on interracial marriages, "Is Love Colorblind". In the article, he believes Asian males and Black females are so inherently inferior and unattractive by birthright, they will be at a significant disadvantage in finding relationships and will be breeded out of society. This overexaggerated article was known to create gender divides among the races. Knowing the stir initially created by this article, he wrote another article in 2003 where he flat out lied about the 2000 Census stats on interracial marriages to repeat the havoc initially created so he can profit. 
In the late 1990s, Sailer made two more accomplishments in the name of scientific racism. First, he created the Human Biodiversity Group, a right-wing eugenics thinktank where people with the mindsets of Steve Sailer can discuss and promote academic racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and eugenics policies. Among the worst members of the HBD group, whom Sailer Primarily bases his scientific research upon, are Charles Murray, Vincent Sarich, Arthur Jensen, John Derbyshire, Chris Brand, Philippe Rushton, Jim Woodhill, Steve Pinker, Jon Entine, and Peter Brimelow. 
Second, Steve Sailer left the National Review to join the VDare internet publication. VDare is notorious for it's pro-fascist, anti-immigration stance and racist views to rid America of anyone who is not white. VDare's president, Peter Brimelow, declared the 1965 Immigration Act as "Hitler's revenge". As a note, VDare labels itself as a non-profit organization to avoid paying taxes and to give tax breaks to its contributors, but it profits anyway to employ exclusively right-wing biased journalists and racists so they can make a living. 
Sailer's racist views and true colors became more prevalent after writing articles for VDare. Whether declaring that Latinos are no-good trash and Latino immigration must end, or that Blacks are genetically inferior in mental capability and do not deserve equal educational and economic opportunities, or that Asians are genetically inferior in physique and do not deserve opportunities in professional sports, Sailer has used VDare as his flagship to carry out his racist agenda of white supremacy and to trash on anyone who is not white like him.   OneViewHere 17:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Aside from being another "just so story," it really is simply irrelevnt. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hang on a second are your sure Steven Pinker is in this group? I'm not a huge fan, but I don't think he is a racist? --Hontogaichiban 14:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Steve Sailor Exposed

message: There appears to be some confusion about Wikipedia policy. Here's a paragraph from WP:V
:Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so.
So personal websites (such as those on Tripod) are unacceptable sources unless they are directly about the person in question. Hence, citing Omura's website in an article about Omura is acceptable, but citing it for other purposes is not. I hope that clears everything up. --Wzhao553 20:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that sentiment.  However, it will mean taking out a good bit of what is currently in the article if we stop using non-reliable sources such as MM.  Are you up for that? -- Gnetwerker 22:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, MM rarely publishes original content. The articles which User:Natsume Soseki referenced were originally written by Hoyt Sze for the Berkeley-run paper, The Daily Californian. In this case, you are discussing whether a college newspaper such as The Daily Californian is a reliable source, not whether MM is reliable. If you don't think the paper is reliable, then I am curious as to why you believe so, but saying that a reference is unreliable just because it was republished on MM is of course a bit silly. --Wzhao553 22:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether that paper is reliable or not, and I'm not taking a position on this issue at all -- just trying to keep the peace. -- Gnetwerker 22:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia policy 

message: I have attempted to recommend this article for deletion since it is inherently, and unresolvably POV, because of the on-going edit-warring, POV-pushing, and, most recently, Wzhao553's continuous insertion of a large block of original text, based on, and including quotes from articles for which I was deleted and accused of vandalism for merely quoting. Natsume Soseki 17:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gazpacho, could you please explain to Natsume that he needs to actually write something in the AfD page at some point in order to start the debate? --Wzhao553 21:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I completely agree. The Origins section should replace the unsourced Popular terminology and Academic terminology sections, as I mentioned earlier. --Wzhao553 23:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done. --Wzhao553 03:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD

message: I have again moved Wzhao's original research to the social activism section.  Wzhao again is trying to turn this page into an extension of http://www.modelminority.com or other activist websites by presenting an entirely unencyclopedic essay on one view of the origins of this term.  The result is a thin gruel of pseudo-Freudian analysis, second-rate literary criticism, and social activism.  I have not (as I probably should) removed the original research entirely from the article (yet), but it needs to stay in the section reserved for social activism.  The literary criticism is not informative to the typical reader of Wikipedia. -- Gnetwerker 22:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gnetwerker, several editors have remarked in the AfD2 that they do not understand why you believe that the page as it stands violates WP:NOR. For instance, there is no mention of Freud at all. If you think that it does, then you need to explain to everyone how it does before making major changes. Otherwise, your edits constitute vandalism and are an obvious violation of WP:OWN, WP:CSB and WP:NPOV#Anglo-American focus, not to mention :m:MPOV. Regards, --Wzhao553 01:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And several have mentioned that the article is full of POV original research. Name your poison. -- Gnetwerker 06:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later.
Regards, --Wzhao553 06:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Gnetwerker, again, you are suffering from a severe case of :m:MPOV. You do not own this article, and you are the only one who thinks that the article is more POV the way I have it than the way you have it. Your belief that Asian Americans are inherently POV is neo-racist and condescending. --Wzhao553 07:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't claim to own it.  Indeed, I have written little of it.  I do hold the line in preventing you from turning into your personal webpage.  Calling me racist will have no effect on me.  I have reverted anti-Asian POV as readily and quickly as your POV.  It is not racist to consider a bias to be such, even if held by a minority.  I regret that you labor under this misapprehension, and/or that you stoop to this low, low rehtorical device. -- Gnetwerker 07:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Then let me say it clearly: I believe it entirely possible, likely, and certain that some Asian American editors can provide NPOV contributions here.  You (Wzhao), have at various points in the past provided some.  At other points your have tried (by you own admission) to insert Asian American acivist POV.  In this case, your edits are extremely biased.  You are trying to turn the page into an activist poster: Simple as that. -- Gnetwerker 07:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, and the problem is that the new section is original research, and your comment belies  your belief that you own the article. -- Gnetwerker 07:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If you wish to delete "Academic terminology" I will not stand in your way.  I will revert attempts to insert your "Origins" essay into the section of the page not identified as activism, as it is OR, and mostly not relevant to the page (some pieces by its own admission!). -- Gnetwerker 07:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The "Asian fetish" use in pornography can be sourced by any number of links to porn sites -- it is discretion that prevents their links -- he google search is (IMO) sufficient.  The Academic section has been removed. -- Gnetwerker 07:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Uh, do the search, as distasteful as it is,  is what most people see and think of as Asian fetish.  Does it play on stereotypes?  Yes, but whitewashing it with convoluted diatribes doesn't change it. And if "every single person" has a problem with the terminology section, then let's wait for them to remove it, not you. -- Gnetwerker 08:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What I observe is that the combination of your emotional investment in the subject and your undergraduate sensibility regarding what is and is not encyclopedic often makes your edits unsuitable for Wikpedia.  I applaud your positions on "The Fighting 44's" website. -- Gnetwerker 08:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research in this article 

message: The so-called "Asian fetish vandal", previously known as the "Virago vandal", may have moved on to Pedophile activism. Unfortunately, some of his off-kilter concepts are less obvious there so extra care will be required and extra help will be appreciated. -Will Beback 09:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Infinity0/Vandal report is still up if anybody wants to add details to it. -- infinity0 11:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal 

message: I've glanced over the talk page; seen the two versions. Here are my thoughts:
*The "use in pornography" is not "*the* definition" like it is made out to be in Gnetwerker's version. However, it is ommited in Wzhao's version. Asian fetish as a sexual fetish should be mentioned, but not primarily as pornography.
*Sections 1 and 2 should be named "As a sexual fetish" and "As used in social activism". I myself have not come across the latter usage but that's just my personal experience and means nothing.
-- infinity0 11:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, Infinity0, we'll take a vote. I've asked ThreeAnswers, Sunray, Idont Havaname and OneViewHere to comment on whether they think that Asian fetish is primarily defined as pornography involving Asian women or whether they think that Asian fetish is primarily defined as men who are obsessed with Asian women. --Wzhao553 13:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: A fetish is defined as: "A condition in which arousal and/or sexual gratification is attained through inanimate objects (shoes, pantyhose) or non-sexual body parts (feet, hair)."  Thus you can have "fetish pornography," but a fetish cannot reasonably be defined as "pornography."  Note that to meet the definition, this article must focus on the objectivization of Asians.  There is, thus, a great deal of extraneous chaff in the article that should be weeded out.  Sunray 16:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infinity0's take on the dispute 

message: Everybody, watch how many times you revert.  Also, potential NPOV violations aren't vandalism by Wikipedia's definition.  I haven't had a chance yet to explore all the archived talk pages or the history of the article to compare the versions yet to come to any conclusion about them. Шизомби 22:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again for your help and mediation between Gnetwerker and me, Шизомби. I owe you one. Well, from my own POV, basically, in the very beginning (Talk:Asian fetish/Archive), the article focused on porn and did not include references to how Asian Americans actually use the term. There were a lot of complaints about this, so it migrated toward Asian American usage, and included references to Asian American literature. Now, the article seems to be moving back in the direction of porn and away from standard Asian American usage and referenced literature, which is somewhat frustrating, for obvious reasons, to an Asian American editor trying to accurately represent how the term is actually used in his own community. Again, this is my personal POV about a term that was coined and is used primarily in my own community, and is not (yet) the Wikipedia consensus. Thanks again. --Wzhao553 00:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the version before Wzhao begain inserting his essay had been structurally stable for over two months (see ), and without any discernible drift "in the direction of porn".  It is WzHao's attempt to insert the Asian American social activist POV that is destabilizing he article.  There is no problem with representing that POV, but what is being pushed is a "hostile takeover" of the article.  Wzhao should cut down his "Origins" essay to a single paragraph (or two) that is directly relevant to this article, and move the rest somewhere else, as most of the references (by admission of the text) do not directly reference "Asian fetish". -- Gnetwerker 01:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This was the former state of the article, the state that Wzhao is trying to subvert. -- Gnetwerker 22:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverts

message: I deleted this, another version of the perennial penis-size paragraph:
:Aside from the issue of height, one of the most controversial topics is the issue of penis size, in which people of Asian descent are perceived as being smaller than Caucasians and men of African descent. The only reliable studies of penis-size commonly cited are the Kinsey study, the UCSF study, and an Italian study, none of which even attempted to correlate size with race. There have been many other studies with claims of varying rigor such as the LifeStyles condoms study, but these are generally flawed by selection bias. Frequently cited is the study of J. Phillipe Rushton (1987), but Rushton's data are questionably fitted to his personal theories of racial behavior, including his claims that blacks are inherently inferior in brain size and are thus prone to criminality. Despite the unproven nature of the penis stereotype, it nonetheless leads to the perception that interracial relations are based more on penis size compatibility than simply on personal attraction, which also parallels the popular beliefs surrounding white female/black male relationships.
-- Gnetwerker 22:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wzhao asked me to weigh in so here I am. Frankly I think these penis size sections have represented exactly what is wrong with this article: it is being used as a soapbox to construct a unified theory of media representations of Asians and Asian Americans and how those representations cause harm. An article with the title "Asian fetish" should be strictly limited in scope rather. Instead it keeps veering towards something like Asian American contemporary issues which seems to be what many are after but insist on turning this article into, rather than creating a new article which would be the appropriate thing to do. An encyclopedia article is not meant to be exhaustive; that's why "external links" and "further reading" sections exist.--ThreeAnswers 16:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an excellent suggestion. ThreeAnswers. Since several editors have already complained that the entire Asian male section is only tangentially related to Asian fetish, we can move the entire section into an Asian American contemporary issues article. Thanks for the input. --Wzhao553 18:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: ThreeAnswers's analysis is insightful.  I am strongly in favor of a smaller, more focused article. -- Gnetwerker 19:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, and have many times suggested that WzHao create Asian American social activism or something similar. -- Gnetwerker 23:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see why women (or men) could not have a fetish for asian men.  That would probably have to be supported by sources; however, referring to the fetish as exclusively for asian women would also have to be supported by sources. Шизомби 04:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-Asian men with a "fetish" for Asian men are called "rice queens." There exists substantial literature in Asian American queer writing that deals with this, but I am not personally familiar with much of it. I agree that non-Asian women could have a fetish for Asian men, but there exists far less literature and evidence of this (in the US). There have been various attempts to insert paragraphs about this in Canada and the UK (see the last paragraph of this section), but they have all been reverted by other editors. --Wzhao553 04:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, the para in quesiton was deleted because it was completely unsourced. -- Gnetwerker 17:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Rice queens, right.  There's an article about gay male Asian porn star Brandon Lee in Linda William's Porn Studies but no mention of asian fetish there despite a discussion of stereotypes, though maybe some of the texts in the bibliography might. Шизомби 20:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penis size again 

message: Sorry I haven't had the time to get involved in this article, but I can tell what you guys are talking about. I have two important notes to add to this:
#Firstly make sure all your statements are sourced and the sources are relevant to this article. 
#Also, whoever wants to talk about penis size should first make a case for its relevance to this article. The title of the article is "Asian fetish". As far as I know this only applies to Asian women. If you want to talk about Asian men then not only should the material be directly relevant to Asian fetish, but the context should also have to do with Asian fetish. Bascially, no off-topic statements. 
If for some reason you believe these two points are being ignored, contact me immediately and I'll take a closer look. AucamanTalk 04:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why women (or men) could not have a fetish for asian men.  That would probably have to be supported by sources; however, referring to the fetish as exclusively for asian women would also have to be supported by sources. Шизомби 04:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-Asian men with a "fetish" for Asian men are called "rice queens." There exists substantial literature in Asian American queer writing that deals with this, but I am not personally familiar with much of it. I agree that non-Asian women could have a fetish for Asian men, but there exists far less literature and evidence of this (in the US). There have been various attempts to insert paragraphs about this in Canada and the UK (see the last paragraph of this section), but they have all been reverted by other editors. --Wzhao553 04:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, the para in quesiton was deleted because it was completely unsourced. -- Gnetwerker 17:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Rice queens, right.  There's an article about gay male Asian porn star Brandon Lee in Linda William's Porn Studies but no mention of asian fetish there despite a discussion of stereotypes, though maybe some of the texts in the bibliography might. Шизомби 20:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside view

message: I love this article! I just wanna say thank you for deciding to keep this amazing article that you would never see in a regular encyclopedia! I totally agree with you that most Asian females do date Caucasian men b/c they are more sexually appealing.  Now that I read this article, I feel like like the only guy I wanna date is Caucasian men.  Thanks again for your inspiration. (207.156.196.242)
:And to all other readers: do not feed the trolls. The user above is a high school student who probably has never had a date in his life. -- Gnetwerker 19:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't that sort of hypocritical to insult him/her like that then? That's feeding in my mind.--SeizureDog 06:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well you can understand her response in a way, racism, as displayed in this article is very ugly and unsexy...--Hontogaichiban 14:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please don't use Wikipedia as a discussion forum.  From What Wikipedia is not, "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate." --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To all the Wikipedian contributors!  

message: If an "Asian" man only dates "Asian" women does he have an "Asian Fetish"? If not, why not? Just another argument why this whole page is just a load of racist mumbo jumbo (IMHO).--Hontogaichiban 22:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If his understanding of Asian women is limited to Western stereotypes and misconceptions of Asian women, then yes. Otherwise, no. --Wzhao553 00:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I respectfully disagreee with Wzhao553.  I think it depends on how you define "fetish" and "asian fetish," so I think an asian man could (but certainly wouldn't necessarily) have an asian (woman) fetish.  A redhead could have a redhead fetish, a fat person a fat fetish, etc. Шизомби 01:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: My own take on it is that people may be identified or self-identify, jokingly or seriously, as having an asian fetish when they only have a preference.  That preference might be more accurately be labeled a fetish when it is their primary or exclusive attraction.  That attraction might be based on (1) appearance or (2) supposed behavioral and/or ideological characteristics or (3) some combination thereof.  Other people seem to define it differently, however. Шизомби 02:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asian Men with Asian Fetish 

message: Another point worth remembering is that often people will be attracted to individuals with a more exotic appearence, accent or culture. This is quite probably because of the benefits of outbreeding. It is well documented that children of so called "mixed-race" are healthier than children born from couples of the same "race". It would be possible to make arguments critising those who only date within their own "race" as being inbreeders or to some degree incestuous, that sounds more like a fetish to me...  --Hontogaichiban 02:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This line of reasoning has already been suggested by an anonymous German editor and rejected by consensus for inclusion in the article. I was initially emphatic in my view that it warrants inclusion, but there were enough editors opposed to it to decidedly overrule me. --Wzhao553 03:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I can see how a discussion of that could be related to this, but perhaps the problem is that linking the two could be considered original research if no source can be cited linking the two?  If there's a WP article on it, perhaps a see also would be less problematic.  Which archive(s) was the discussion of this topic in? Шизомби 18:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the first section of Talk:Asian_fetish/Archive_6, discussing the section found here. --Wzhao553 21:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Шизомби 00:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I read through that section. What is being covered there is, entirely as far as I can see, pseudoscientific and would not be taken seriously by most evolutionary biologists and psychologists. It is all conjecture and theory with no solid evidence whatsoever. It is clearly designed to be racist. Although I don't doubt that these things have been published I think reproducing pseudoscientific theories can be dangerous in itself. A bit like the disproportionate amount of attention given to creationism, which can make it seem to outside observers like such pseudoscience is on an equal footing with more proven science when it clearly isn't. I don't think what I was suggesting above is linked to these theories. --Hontogaichiban 00:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The anonymous German editor was attempting to use anthropological research to prove his assertions of how people might be attracted to individuals with a more exotic appearance, and of the benefits of outbreeding. If that is not what you had in mind, then I misunderstood you. Please clarify. --Wzhao553 00:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I may not be looking at the right article then (sorry still not completely fluent in wiki). The section I looked at was not talking about attraction to individuals with more exotic characteristics, but was making some very dubious comments about paedophilia in relation to Asian women. It was also talking about some other pseudoscience relating to male and female gametes!? Is this the section we're talking about?--Hontogaichiban 12:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't forget outbreeding brings about the genetic dilution theory: Asians (Including South Asians) outnumber whites, therefore Asian interrelations will result in the eventual extinction of whites.--67.177.185.125  03:39, 5 June 2006
Firstly how do you define whites and asians? Secondly, there would be no more extinction of whites than there would be Asians, the offspring would inherit equally. However, I'm sure in the very long run, if Humans survive long enough, "races" as we know them today will become meaningless and personally I don't think that would be a particularly bad thing. Remember the Roman empire ran from scotland to north africa. Soldiers were recruited in africa and sent to defend Hadrians wall in Scotland, those soldiers often married locally and died there. The result of all this was that it is quite hard 2000 years later to spot the different ethnic groups that originally made up europe, hence we now say European looking, before the Romans the British natives had red hair and pale skin, the French had brown hair and green eyes and the Germans blond hair and blue eyes (to simplify).--Hontogaichiban 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary Drive to Outbreed 

message: When those of you who believe in "Asian fetish" label people with this term, are you asserting that these individuals are attracted by a woman's "asian" appearence, her culture or both? --Hontogaichiban 02:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest as an quite "Eurasian looking" (To some extent of the people in North America) Chinese girl from Hong Kong, I don't know what is really with that.  Probably a product of assumption, stereotypes and expectation.. --MeowKun 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main reason is deinitely the "exotic" looks. Another major reason is of cultural expectations; that she would do everything in the house.--Ryz05 t 20:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Asian fetish" is based on appearence or culture? 

message: I used to live in Japan and there "White" women are idolised by a large number of men. This meant that on the more benign side, you had many Japanese men idolising western singers and actresses and on the more extreme side you had large numbers of "White" women coming over to work in hostess bars.
I also know a number of Asian men who have only dated "White" women since high school, they almost always go for stereotypical blonds. I know this is only anecdotal evidence, but I'm sure that other contributers to this discussion must also have come across such individuals. There maybe more "White" mean marrying "Asian" women in the US than the other way around, but this may not be down to a lack of desire on the "Asian" men's part but more a lower rate of success in converting these relatioships to marriage, perhaps not least because "White" women are more likely to come from cultures where marriage is not as desirable as it is in asian cultures.--Hontogaichiban 00:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there are people with a preference for, or a fetish for, every "race" there is.  "White fetish" doesn't get many hits, and at least some are for other things (e.g. cinephiles with a b&w fetish), but having such a fetish may be called something else.  There might be less writing about other fetishes; why that would be, I don't know. "Caucasion fetish" brought up practically no hits at all, though it did bring up a Savage Love column in which Dan Savage differentiated between people with an attraction to Asians (or others) versus people with a racist attraction. Шизомби 01:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "White" fetish 

message: Well apart form the fact that some "Asian" females also like to use the term, a number of "White" women also use the term. In my experience (anecdotal as well, but I don't see much of any other kind of evidence on this rather worthless article) it is sometimes used by "White" women to descibe "White" men dating "Asian" women, it seems to me, due purely to jealousy.--Hontogaichiban 00:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propagators of the "Asian" fetish myth are not all "Asian" males 

message: Although I think they should change this, people from Indian Subcontinent (South Asians) are generally described as "Asian" in United States. I think it is important that we specify that this article refers to Mongoloid Asians because as far as I know, Indian Americans aren't usually thought of as "Asian" (they are often looked as a race closer to Persians and Arabs who are generally characterized as "white"). So I am going to specify this in the article. Zachorious 06:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't think south asians are often referred to as asians in the US, nor do I think they are seen as closer to persians and arabs.  The question to be answered is, among people who use the term "asian fetish," do they apply it to south asians as well - and can that be verified. Шизомби 12:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I still don't think South Asians are often mistaken for those other groups.  Maybe light-skinned ones would be sometimes.  Regarding an asian fetish possibly including south asians, the UK magazine Asian Babes includes indians in with far easterners.  The Ethnic stereotypes in pornography article claims that "In modern visual pornography: Black males and [...] Asian girls (women of Subcontinental origin) in Britain," is common.  Unfortunately, that one is weak on citations (I have tagged it for that). Шизомби 17:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Several points, first of all as I mentioned before, Asians in the UK often refers to just Indian Sub-continental Asians. Also don't forget that race is just a myth and there are clines between China and India for example, so that the Nepalese are essentially half Far-eastern, half indian in appearence. Also I don't really thing Mongoloid is an acceptable term, though I'm sure you meant it in good faith. Let's not forget that many editors here would question whether there is such a thing as Asian Fetish and if there is, the definition is certainly up for grabs.--Hontogaichiban 00:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mongoloid Asians, Not South Asians

message: After about five months editing here, I have decided to take this page off of my watchlist.  I came to this page because of an RFC that was posted due to an edit war and a series of (IMO) outrageously racist postings that were made.  In the comparatively short time I've been here, I have been called racist, Asian-hating, Asian-loving, a traitor to my race (I'm Caucasian), and many other things.  This page suffers regularly from being used as a poster for activists with a message to spread, and for white Americans and Europeans who think racism doesn't exist at all ("what are they worried about") or worse, is excused or explained by something.  Good-hearted editors have been driven away on several occasions by the endless arguments, insults, and pettiness.  Recently, however, some new editors have arrived and (at least for the moment), the tone is improved.  As this topic does not hold an special interest for me, I will leave its future in your capable hands. -- Gnetwerker 20:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goodbye 

message: It was mentioned to me that some of the references I mentioned above could possibly be added to the article.  I expect to get around to that sometime, although if someone else wants to add them, they're not stepping on my toes. Шизомби 03:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: A statement in the intro, "primarily East Asians (such as Japanese, Koreans, Taiwanese, ect.)," shouldn't the word Taiwanese, be replaced with Chinese? Afterall, there are more Chinese women than Taiwanese women because of the mainland's larger population. --Ryz05 t 20:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on an intro statement 

message: Downgraded the tag from  to , which seems to provide a better picture of the problems still in this article and seems to be a more focused and meaningful way of encouraging more users to expand and improve the article. --Wzhao553 18:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New tag 

message: The entire exogamy section is irrelevant, if not insulting.  First, it was clearly there to defend interracial relationships in general, not only Asian/Non-Asian ones, and as such doesn't belong on this page.  Next, this page is about Asian Fetish, not pro/con of Asian interracial relationship.  If anyone wants to start an article on Asian interracial relationships, then by all means go ahead.  Be The Reds! 22:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not irrelevant at all it is a possible healthy explanation for what is considered unhealthy behaviour. As Asian/Non-Asian relationships are interracial relationships it DOES belong on this page. As I have said elsewhere, if you think the term "Asian fetish" has nothing to do with asian interracial relationships you obviously are not aware of how the phrase is actually used in real life.--Hontogaichiban 18:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who keeps putting exogamy back into the article?  Stop it! That's not what this article is about!Bethereds 15:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Exogamy Section 

message: This is an attempt to reason out why some Asian women might want to date out.  It has nothing to do with Asian fetish.  Furthermore it is insulting to Asian Men to suggest that they also can't be a part of a clash of cultures.Be The Reds! 22:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Clash of Cultures Section 

message: Please try to reach a little more of a clear consensus before removing large blocks of text from an article, as that appears very much like vandalism. I handed out a warning based on this (which I will now rescind), but please do leave a note on a talk page for a little bit to allow for responses (as with WP:FARC used to be, leaving a list of issues that can be dealt with for a while before just jumping into a FARC). Staxringold talkcontribs 02:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or...  you could have checked the Talk page before jumping the gun on sticking a vandalism tag on somebody.  Hong Qi Gong 17:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Staxringold, you can't just wipe out whole sections without consensus.--Hontogaichiban 18:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of content

message: It seems like we're having trouble defining "Asian fetish". I can't find an online definition of "Asian fetish" but there are definitions of "fetish" from respected sources. www.dictionary.com defines fetish as:
1. An object that is believed to have magical or spiritual powers, especially such an object associated with animistic or shamanistic religious practices. 
2. An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence: made a fetish of punctuality. 
3. Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification. 
4. An abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment; a fixation. 
I think definition 3 is what applies to this article. In this case, the fetish is race. How we fit "Asian" into this definition is beyond me, but maybe this is a start.
Plan B: Can we just put something in the Wiktionary and say that that for the purposes of editing this articler, it is our official definition?
Either way, it would be could if we had a clear idea of what we were talking about. Single guy 02:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this is a major part of the problem. Obviously, non of the definitions listed is very satisfactory. Don't be too quick to state that the fetish here is race either, it could just as well be Asian culture as it could be race, and is most likely to be combination of the two, or race is used as a marker for culture. Then again as I've said repeatedly, I think the term "Asian fetish" is most often used as an attack on interracial relationships - though I do acknowledge that there is are some people who have a stereotypical sexually orientated attitute to Asian women. Finally we cannot make up our own definition of the term as this would be original research and would be misleading.--Hontogaichiban 11:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of Fetish

message: I would like to merge the Sexual Stereotypes section after the first paragraph of that section into the Asian section of Ethnic stereotypes in American media where it belongs. Comments? Logoi 22:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, just before you do, is there any call to explain this paragraph in terms of asian fetish? I'm not saying I think there is, but is there? I suppose it is a counter to the argument that "Asian fetish" arises from some kind of media stereotype that says Asian women are submissive...? --Hontogaichiban 00:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Sexuality and  Stereotypes Section with [[Ethnic stereotypes in American media]]

message: The quote is too short and doesn't support what was read into it, although I haven't looked at the whole goldsea site.  The movie is actually correct in portraying Asian men in Asia like this.  It happens to be a matter of fact that should probably go into this article (under American bias) that in parts of Asia, Western white women become courtesans/bar hostesses/entertainers and are sought after by Asian men there for their race and racial attributes that are thought to be attractive  (like white skin, height, larger breasts etc.).  I'm not aware of a negative label for them doing this. (Trivial point in case it's reverted: The movie reference should have been to Rising Sun).   It is also fairly clear that some people are using the label "asian fetish" to discourage interracial relationships in order to empower Asian men in America.  I think there should be a section on the politics of this term.  Logoi 08:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be a fair addition, so long as it is pointed out that white men feel that it is also fairly clear that some people are using the label to discourage interracial relationships.  (Out of all the times that I have seen this criticisms, I do not believe I have ever seen it come from someone who is not a white male.)  Discussing the politics is fair, but using the white male viewpoint without disclaimer and as some default case is also clearly a violation of WP:BIAS and WP:NPOV#Anglo American focus. --Wzhao553 09:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  We should identify which groups are making which claims. Logoi 09:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike the many Asian fetish advocacy websites run by Asians, I have not found an Asian fetish criticism website run by White males which would support User:Wzhao553's assertion that the dicouragement of interracial relationship criticism has been an argument pushed by only White males.  User:Wzhao553 feels from his/her own personal experiences it is a "white men" viewpoint.  If the dicouragement criticism were added, it could not include User:Wzhao553's assertion because it is his/her original research.---Dark Tichondrias 19:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of 'Solutions' section

message: Dark Tichondrias, you did a good job of clarifying this section, but now that it's clarified, it seems like the entirety of the Chin and Chan discussion belongs on the page racist love.  The origins of the term should be limited to citing it's first uses which is done at the end of the section, with an brief one-line explanation of racist love after the quote which uses it linking to the racist love page. Logoi 01:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Section on Criticism of Chin and Chan

message: I can't stress enough that the subject of Asian fetish is not about interracial relationships, nor should it be about interracial relationships.  It is a term to describe a certain type of sexual attraction.
But yes, it has certainly been used to attack interracial relationships.  However, defending interracial relationships is not a criticism of term Asian fetish.  What should be mentioned is its usage and how the term is offensive to some people.
A lot of the editors of this article is missing a very important point - that a criticism of the negative connotations of this article needs to concentrate on that some people consider it perfectly normal and healthy to have a sexual attraction specifically for Asian people.  That would be a real criticism and a real opposing view.  
The Exagomy section is especially off topic as it doesn't even deal specifically with Asian people.  Some editors may think that Asian fetish is about interracial relationships involving Asian people, but the section deals with interracial relationships involving people of any races.  It doesn't even defend interracial relationships with Asian people, it defends relationshiops involving any two people not of the same race, regardless of what races.  
Hong Qi Gong 17:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you delete exogamy section again, note it is about asian people now.--Hontogaichiban 22:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Hong Qi Gong  there is enough stuff about interrattial relationships in the article so that the tag at the top that it is NOT about interracial relationships is confusing.  Maybe say that somewhere in the article.  I agree about exogamy though, there should be at most one sentence about it in a racial separatist section if anyone ever makes one.  Logoi 20:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it just my opinion?  "Asian fetish" is used to describe a type of sexual attraction.  Plain and simple.  No, I don't think we should remove everything that has to do with interracial relationships.  It should be mentioned that it's usage to label people is offensive, especially people in interracial relationships.  But a real criticism of the negative connotation of "Asian fetish" needs to concentrate on how it is actually healthy and normal to be sexually attracted especially to Asian people.  Hong Qi Gong 20:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed.Logoi 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interracial relationships revisited 

message: The Gene Expression source does not claim that Asian men or East Asian men are the least authoratative on the subject, whereas Asian women are the best authority on the subject.  It only claims that East Asian men are biased.  Hong Qi Gong 15:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on the Authority on the Subject section 

message: The Gene Expression blog entry does not say that East Asian men "misattribute" the dating disparity to white racism.  All it claims is that the dating disparity is one of the reasons why East Asian men lean to the left politically and that the dating disparity is attributed by East Asian men to racism.  Not "misattributed".  Also, it does not claim that East Asian men who do this are themselves racist.
Please read the sources before you actually use them.
Hong Qi Gong 16:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the Gene Expression blog entry says 

message: There seems to be a prevailing attitude amongst opponents of the usage of the term Asian fetish that it's only Asian men who are complaining about Asian fetish, and only as a way to discourage interracial dating amongst Asian women.  I can't stress enough how incorrect this is.  And why shouldn't they be?  They are being racially and sexually objectified.  From my personal life I have known plenty of Asian women who are against it.  But you shouldn't have to take my word for it.  If I spent time on it, I could probably find even more sources.  But of those that are already available in this article, we see that there are Asian women who are not only against it, but are vocal about it.
http://news.asianweek.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=91a5d8dc1e036213372b22d3b3759a34&this_category_id=169
http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=29233
http://www.xanga.com/groups/group.aspx?id=688190
*Get off it! It is really not attractive when you tell an Asian girl that you have a "thing" for them. We want to know that you think we're hot as individuals and not cuz you have a "THING" for us. We don't want to be a dating trend. We're not exotic little sex kittens so stop! It is so sickening.. 
And again, I also stress that this is not an attack on interracial relationships.  But in your editing of the article, please be aware and in consideration that it's not only Asian men who are against Asian fetish.  Hong Qi Gong 21:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a non-issue since no one is saying it  _is_  only asian men. But I agree that to the extent anyone claims that, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.Logoi 21:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These men actually do have a "thing" for them strictly as individuals even if their general preference is Asian women, but this "thing" is not a fetish.  A general preference for Asian females would discriminate between attractive Asian females and unattractive Asian females.  Some people prefer Asian women in general, but would only have a "thing" for the attractive ones.  This is not a fetish, but the sum of mutliple points of evaluation, possibly comprising facial structure, skin tone, make-up, etc.  A general preference for a group of people would play into this list of factors, but is not the exclusive factor.  In this context, "thing" is synonymous with individual enamoration.  If she wants to know that "you think we are hot as individuals", she should ask her partner not to speak in ambiguous terms.--Dark Tichondrias 23:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, apparently there are Asian American girls and women that disagree with your evaluation.  Hong Qi Gong 05:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't an evaluation, that was a recommendation for them to look deeper and see if their assumptions are actually warranted.   Logoi 00:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not only Asian men who criticise Asian fetish 

message: The article never claims it is scientific fact in the first place.  If we are to name everything as a "theory" when it's not proven, then we'd have a lot of wiki articles to rename.  Hong Qi Gong 05:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The hypothesis is that the attraction is to stereotypes, i.e. not to a person, but to their race or perceptions about their culture, and that somehow this is a mental pathology of the person who feels this attraction.  This is the thing that is strictly psychological and that hasn't been proven to exist, and this is where all the controversy is.   Logoi 00:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article never claims it is scientific fact, just like Racism or Sexism, or any number of sociological topics which also do not claim it is scientific fact.  Should Racism be moved to Racism theory or Theory of racism?  The body of the content specifically mentions that this is not a psychologically studied subject.  I mean, forget about Racism and Sexism.  How about Martian?  If we are to start renaming articles to X Theory or X Hypothesis, then we'd have a whole lot of articles to rename in wiki.  There is no policy for it, and there is no precedence to it.  The justification for renaming is completely unfounded especially since, like I said, the term in question here is "Asian fetish", not "Asian fetish theory" or "Asian fetish hypothesis".  Hong Qi Gong 00:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Martian is indeed an analogous article.  The first sentence of the article reads:  "The word Martian is a hypothetical native inhabitant of the planet Mars."  The term is used more widely than what we can be called the "asian fetish hypothesis"--the hypothesis that people are attracted to asians due to racial stereotypes, as opposed to say, their beauty.  As long as we label the hypothesis as a hypothesis, there's no problem.Logoi 04:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't know why the page was moved 

message: I've created and referenced Asian fetish (disambiguation), and deleted the mention of the cocktail, the band, and the magazine from the article itself.  Hong Qi Gong 06:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  As a cocktail, a band, and a magazine 

message: Substituted at 20:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment