Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 3

message: Howrealisreal has listed this article at Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive.  I encourage you all (who have accounts) to vote for this article there and provide comments as you see fit.  If this article is chosen for article improvement status, it could improve greatly within the coming weeks.  (The goal of the article improvement drive, in case you're not familiar with the process, is to improve non-stub articles to featured article status.) --Idont Havaname 04:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: The article was delisted on November 15 for not having enough votes. --Idont Havaname 06:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now listed at [[Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive]] 

message: Reading this Talk page is a chore because one or more people post blocks of text without any signature, making it hard to tell who wrote what to whom, and when they wrote it -- making this Talk page nigh-incomprehensible. Please sign your comments. It's easy: just type two hyphens in a row, then a space, then four tildes. Like so: -- BBlackmoor (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Sign Your Comments 

message: Several editors have brought up the question of, "What constitutes original research?", here and at this page's entry at Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive.  No original research is an official Wikipedia policy and is supported by this project's founder, Jimbo Wales.  It's right there with neutral point of view and verifiability.  Here are some points out of WP:NOR that could certainly apply to how this article currently stands. (I've added some emphasis.)
#"Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to verify that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what the sources say."
#"The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation"."
#"Wikipedia welcomes experts. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. Otherwise, we hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles."
#"Like most Wikipedia policies, No original research applies to articles, not to talk pages or project pages, although it is regarded as poor taste to discuss personal theories on talk pages."
Hope this helps.  If you have any more questions, I encourage you to read through the whole WP:NOR policy, which also contains the text of some emails from Jimbo on the English Wikipedia mailing list (wikien-l), or additionally you may ask me at my talk page. --Idont Havaname 00:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added two sourced sections on yellow peril and the model minority myth in America. I think from here we should identify other NPOV information that relates to these topics already in the article and integrate it in. That way we can organize the article better (under flowing headings and subheadings, etc..) and improve the overall balance and objectivity of research. --Howrealisreal 19:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term "original research" 

message: I don't think that "Social consequences" is a good title for the section describing crimes resulting from Asian fetish.  There are many social consequences that arise other than crime, which are far less serious.  (Saying that Asian fetishism always leads to crime, or only leads to crime, is a rather extreme position.)  I'm going to change the heading to "The Asian fetish's role in crime" for now.  Does that sound good, or does anyone have a better title for it? --Idont Havaname 22:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that heading needed to be renamed also. How about "Co-occurrence with crime"? The way it is worded now seems a little long-winded maybe. --Howrealisreal 19:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's what I was thinking too.  Thanks for your suggestion; I'll change it to "Co-occurrence with crime". --Idont Havaname 22:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Co-occurence with crime" is an inaccurate statement. It's like stating that hanging black men during the 1960's by the KKK was a co-occurence with a crime and that racism just happened to be part of the crime instead of the major cause of the crime. Almost all of these people who are stated as committing crimes against asian women were targeting asian women specifically because they were asian and because of their misconceived notions of asian women. Further, many of them were actively attempting to date asian women or had attempted this in the past. Kennethtennyson 20:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any possibility that "How real is real" is the same person as "I don't have a name?"  Anyways, it is quite unlikely that anyone would name any title - "co-occurence with crime".  It just sounds like an euphemism that someone would create - like the phrase "unexpected consequences" to describe the thousands of deaths after a race riot. Why are you trying to change this article to deny that the asian fetish phenomenon exists or to downplay it?  Have you watched tv recently?  Kennethtennyson 21:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, I am not Idont Havaname. He and I actually think very differently about this article: he would much rather see it deleted while I want it improved. Why would I, supposedly wanting to "deny the Asian fetish phenomenon exists or downplay it", nominate it at the Article Improvement Drive? Why would I also be the only one so far that has added content from scholarly sources (about the yellow peril and model minority) to substantiate the topic? You can liken me to the KKK or whatever other hate group you want, but until the other editors on this page actually want to discuss and be constructive about this article, instead of bashing eachother's personalities and having an edit war, there will be no hope for this topic to evolve credibility beyond coming across as a subjective, un-referenced rant. --Howrealisreal 23:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I never called for this article's deletion, though back in the unsourced POV rant stages of the article's history I thought about listing it at Articles for Deletion because other editors would see it and list their recommendations.  A topic like this would have the inherent controversy for an AfD to attract substantial discussion instead of robotic keep/delete voting, and to probably attract many, many edits to this page from editors all over the N/POV map during the AfD period.  Deciding that I myself did not want this article deleted (and knowing from much AfD experience that it's rather silly to start an AfD with an "Abstain for now" vote), I eventually listed it at Wikipedia:Third opinion instead rather than bothering AfD; after some people saw it there, they joined in and were able to start improving the article.  I told Howrealisreal to post it on Article Improvement Drive after he suggested it to me.  Since successful AID nominations often end up well on their way toward featured article status, I think that's evidence enough to say I don't want it deleted.  Howrealisreal and I are not the same person, though this certainly isn't the first time I've been accused of being a sockpuppet! .  But rest assured, this is the only account I use here, and I never edit here unless logged in.  I'd be looking for sources for this article too, but my classes this semester are such that I don't really have time to research additional sources as well as I would like to (lately I have not been editing many articles apart from my watchlist either, whereas normally I would be).  If there's still anything that needs to be researched during my winter break, then I'd be happy to see what I can do as far as finding sources for it is concerned.  Sorry for the long post, but hopefully this clears everything up for you all. :-) --Idont Havaname 01:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The title of the "Social consequences" section 

message: What is there to talk about Asian fetish? I really don't know what to add to this article. Is it possible that this article could become a featured article? Whoever started this article must be some weird dude crazy about Asian females.  Sorry but that's how I feel about this article.  Asian fetish wouldn't be in a typical encyclopedia. Wikipedia must be a special encyclopedia if it has articles such as this one.  I agree that the facts are true...but honestly who is really reading this?? Who would be studying Asian fetish as a project? I did googled Asian fetish and the only thing I found was tons of porn sites.  So how do you expect us to find information about this topic? (Kyla 17:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ???

message: I find the article's very title to be wrong on so many different levels. Replace the word Asian with "Black" or "Blond" and you will see what I mean. Sexual fetishes pertain to either objects (Dildos,Cucumbers, Balloons, furry suits etc) practices (Oral, anal, bondage etc) or specific body parts (feet, breasts, ass, belly buttons etc). They DO NOT pertain to an entire race (which happens to also be the largest race on the planet currently, for those keeping score) ! So not only is it racist to refer to an "Asian fetish" but it is, essentially, objectification of women. I will not stoop to say this article's author "needs to get laid". But I would advise him (or possibly her) that if they ever hope to, a good way to start would be to stop viewing and treating people like objects. Treat them with courtesy, respect and kindness, same as you would anyone else (assuming you are a gentleman, of course). Trust me, this works, no matter where you are or whom you're dealing with. You might even find someone who will "love you long time" in every sense...which, ultimately, is all any of us can truly hope for.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Object to Objectification 

message: There are a few camps here. I understand the different sides. However, this article shows the views of one side and explores that side without even accepting the other side, which is excluded all together. These two sides are "like asians for their apperance" and "like asians for their percieved qualities that must come with the appearance" (i.e. the racist/prejudiced stance). To deny that it is possible for non asians to find asians to be beautiful simply due to some of their more typical cosmetical traits is unscientific and absurd. It is neither just about the aesthetics nor the prejudiced side, it is about both. There are different types of motivations for asian fetishists. Both sides must be allowed into the article and explored. Read on to see my concerns and suggestions for change:
""Asian fetish" is a slang term in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Ireland, used to describe the attraction of non-Asian, primarily (but not necessarily) white men, to Asians,"
The introduction has several issues that should be addressed through an elaboration, rewrites and deletion:
1. The use of 'asian' is too vague and unsatisfactory. An "Asian" could refer to a person resident in Asia (including caucasians or blacks, thus), of Asian ethnicity (by that, I refer strictly to their genetical/cosmetical aesthetical features), or someone who embodies the Asian culture, etc. I suggest this be altered to show that Asian fetish 'symptoms' is sexual and romantic attraction toward people who are Asian in appearance (aesthetics). - ( Propose clarification. )
2. Pointing out that an Asian fetishist must be non-asian is inaccurate because it is primarily a sexual preference/obsession. The ethnicity of the Asian fetishist becomes irellevant. I'm sure some who read this will object - but that is only if you believe that the 'natural' automatic attraction is toward people who have certain similar cosmetic traits as oneself. This is not true. It is no more different from caucasians having different eye and hair colours - everyone simply has different preferences. - ( Propose deletion or clarification. )
3. 'white men' is superflous. There are probably more asian men than caucasian men with an asian fetish. Only the old racist ideals of that one should like people who share certain cosmetical traits with oneself makes this pass by unnoticed. - ( Propose deletion or clarification. )
"The phenomenon has also been called "yellow fever,""
1. Perhaps it has, inaccurately. Yellow fever is an overall love/obsession with all things asian, while Asian fetish refers to the sexual/romantical aspect only (Wether or not that is motivated by concious or subconcious racist beliefs does not change this differentiation). - ( Propose clarification of their differences. )
"There is a great deal of controversy surrounding the issue: some would regard the term "Asian fetishist" to be a racist stereotype of white men; others regard the underlying phenomenon itself as evidencing racism on the part of white men who are attracted to Asian women, and possibly on the part of the Asian women themselves (racism against their own cultures)."
1. The controversies described are vague and do not explain why. The other side of the view, that more varied couples is viewed as a very good thing by many, is left out. - ( Propose total rewrite. )
2. "racism against their own cultures" - the author of this does not appear to be able to seperate different concepts like ethnicity (meaning genetical) and culture/nationality. Culture is something like 'environment', traditions, etc, not a group of genetically similar people. Therefore it is impossible to be racist towards such a construct. Also, the author assumes that having an asian appearance means one must also have an asian culture and such, this is both inaccurate and racist. - ( Suggest deletion. ).
Lastly, I think that the introduction should be expanded to give a quick insight into what asian fetishism is, and the two main differences that cause so much controversy - the AF's who appreciate the aesthetics in asians, and the prejudical AF's who are attracted because they believe the aesthetics come with differences in character traits too (stereotyped or asian culturally derived such - this is racist).
I have done a bold rewrite assimilating all these suggested changes. Read it below and comment:
"Asian fetish" is a slang term in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Ireland, used to describe those who; for whatever reason; display the sexual/romantical preference for people of Asian genetical makeup, particularly East Asians such as Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and Taiwanese.
Those with Asian fetish do not find all who are Asian aesthetically to be attractive. One Asian fetishist typically disagrees with another on beauty ideals and displays an individual taste, but find that 'the look' they desire is most frequently held by people of asian genetical makeup. Other ethnicities such as certain caucasians (including jewish and latino), or any combination of the ethnicities, share some typical asian aesthetical traits such as dark hair and dark eyes, typically making them more appealing to the person with an Asian fetish.
Asian fetishism may also be non-aesthetical in nature. Those Asian fetishists who cannot seperate aesthetical genetical traits from cultural traits (see racism) assume that people who are aesthetically Asian also hold certain characteristics and qualities that come from stereotypes and Asian culture. Such people do not necessarily have an aesthetical preference for Asians; the attraction is fueled by assumptions on the nature/character instead. The two types may coexist.
The phenomenon has similarities to "yellow fever," but differs by lacking the intense cultural interest. A heterosexual man who has an Asian fetish may be referred to as a "rice king" or "rice lover" (a homosexual man, a "rice queen"). There is controversy surrounding the issue: The most common is that sexual preferences for those of another genetical aesthetical makeup than one's own is unnatural and therefore an ulterior motive, such as racism, must be present. Others see all forms of Asian fetishism to breed tolerance and acceptance toward diversity.
I will address the rest of the article at a later time. It does provide some interesting and probably true considerations. Parts of it presents only the 'controversial' one side of the view - as fact. This is strongly biased and must be changed. -- Mikkow 04:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about some distinction between what constitutes an asian fetish and what is just an interracial relationship. The two are not the same. To introduce the term without noting that its most apparent usage is misapplied as a pejorative, is leaving out another important viewpoint. --198.105.45.121 16:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Article one sided - propose changes