Misplaced Pages

Talk:Asian fetish: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:21, 30 December 2007 editCool Hand Luke (talk | contribs)14,522 edits →whining by Tkguy: Put whole uncivil section under a hat.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:37, 11 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,657 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 18) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" id="talkheader" align="center" style="text-align:center;background-color: #FFFFFF;"
|-
! colspan="2" style="border-bottom:1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA;" |
This is the ] for discussing changes to the ] article.
|-
| style="background-color: #FFFFFF;text-align:left;" |
'''Please sign your comments using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>).''' Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them <nowiki>==A Descriptive Header==</nowiki>. If you're new to Misplaced Pages, please see ] and ].
| style="background-color: #FFFFFF;" |
<div style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA; margin-left: 20px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-right: 3px;">
''']'''


Please respect ], ] and ].
</div>
|}
{{Controversial}} {{Controversial}}


{{Old XfD multi
{{WikiProject Asian Americans
| date = 31 July 2009
|class=B
| result = '''Speedy keep'''
|importance=mid
| link = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asian_fetish_(5th_nomination)
|attention=yes
| date2 = 13 November 2007
|collaboration-candidate=
| result2 = '''Keep'''
|past-collaboration=
| link2 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asian_fetish_(4th_nomination)
|peer-review=
| date3 = 16 April 2007
|old-peer-review=
| result3 = '''Keep'''
|needs-infobox=
| link3 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asian_fetish_(3rd_nomination)
| date4 = 28 April 2006
| result4 = '''Keep'''
| link4 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asian_fetish_(2nd_nomination)
| date5 = 25 December 2005
| result5 = '''Keep'''
| link5 = //en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asian_fetish
}} }}
{{Pornproject|class=B|importance=Mid}}


{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
{{multidel
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=low}}
|list=
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=low}}
* '''Keep''', ] ], ].
{{WikiProject Asia|importance=low}}
* '''Keep''', ] ], ].
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=low}}
* '''Keep''', ] ], ].
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=low}}
* '''Keep''', ] ], ].
}} }}
{{contentious topics/talk notice|gg}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
{| class="infobox" width="270px" align="right"
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|-
|maxarchivesize = 70K
!align="center"|]<br/>]
|counter = 18
----
|minthreadsleft = 4
|-
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|
|algo = old(120d)
* ]
* ] |archive = Talk:Asian fetish/Archive %(counter)d
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ] -- contains discussion resulting in deletion of "Physical anthropology" and "testosterone" sections
* ] -- 16 Feb 2006 - 11 Mar 2006
* ] -- 11 Mar 2006 - 4 Apr 2006
* ]
* ]
* ]
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->

==What the hell happened?==

This article certainly got short! Whatever happened to the bulk of it contradicting itself. "Asian Fetish is the preference for Asian features usually by a white man for an Asian woman, that is, if it does in fact exist, which currently there isn't much evidence for, that is, at the present time, unless in the event that some kind of evidence is brought forth, there is chance that its existence is mereley speculation, that is, in the minds of those who are opposed to the idea of it existing, whereas those who believe it exist are against it, at least in theory."

I guess everything that the two sides couldn't agree on got deleted? ] 20:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

==A Discussion of Two Problems with the Misplaced Pages Article "Asian Fetish"==

Some Problems with the Misplaced Pages Article Entitled "Asian Fetish"

I submit the following for your review, and thank you for your input.

'''PROBLEM 1'''<br />
''Semantic and Linguistic Problems''
<br />
"Asian Fetish" is a colloquial, slang term, and is indeed used colloquially in modern speech. However, that does not mean it belongs in Misplaced Pages. The first red flag we have concerning this term is that there is no agreement about what the term is, or what it stands for, and the implications of said "fetish." It is impossible to isolate the term semantically and definitively. This begs the question: how can we possibly prove the existence, scientifically, and with credible support, for a form of slang expression that has myriad meanings to different people, depending on what perspective you are coming from?

"WikiIsForLamers" has astutely pointed out that there is no academic material to cite. True, indeed. The reason for this is because of the above. No respecting sociologist would dare venture into defining something via an empirical experiment that is nothing more than a slang term.

Indeed, in order for a term to be included in Misplaced Pages, it should represent something that can be empirically proven, and semantically isolated. If not, it belongs in something similar to the Urban Dictionary , where anyone can enter a definition for a slang term, and surfers can either approve or disapprove of each definition with a vote.

'''PROBLEM 2'''<br />
''Importance and Urgency''<br />

The question must be asked: Is this slang term important enough to have an article in Misplaced Pages? Is there in fact an urgent need for this article to exist in Misplaced Pages? The fact is, if it does warrant a high level of attention, as the authors contend, then the burden of proof is on them to produce logical, empirical evidence that this "asian fever / asian fetish" is much more than simple, common attraction to different types of people that people have from all walks of life, and in thousands for different ways. If they cannot produce this evidence then it is clear to the author that the term, referring to a pathological obsession with Asians, is not unique, and therefore does not necessitate an article of it's own. That is, it is no different than a simple attraction for the color of eyes, a career path, or an income level; or maybe an attraction to a certain kind of personality. Indeed, if we include this article as worthy of being in Misplaced Pages, then why shouldn't we have articles for, say, "Redhead Fever," "Movie Star Fever," "Millionaire Fever," "Rock Star Fever," or "Rapper Fever?" The list goes on and on.

In my opinion, there has been an obvious artificial elevation of the importance of this topic here at this article, and that is part of the reason why the current defenders are having such a difficult time defending it's value. As for the motive behind an incredibly robust defense of such a vague slang term, the author has stated his opinions at length already in the above Discussion area. Whether you would agree or not is immaterial to the concrete, obvious intellectual problems with the handling of this article. The author encourages those who would debate to simply make rigorous examination of the problems per above, and make a judgment.

'''ADDENDUM'''<br />
''A Word about the deleted section connecting the alleged "Asian Fetish" with violence toward Asian women'' <br />
This was a striking and damaging mistake. It betrayed a very serious attempt to demonize these relationships by trying to connect a simple attraction for Asian women with a tendency toward violence to these same women. It has since been deleted, but it nevertheless remains to be disturbing glimpse into the motives of those who insisted that it was fair, accurate and logical. They were insisting that what is -- until conclusive proof is offered to the contrary -- a simple attraction was tantamount to violence against Asian women. We were left to conclude that all WM/AF relationships would probably result in some sort of violence.

I condemn that as dangerous. We should never make such broad, general, damning statements about any other group in such an unfair way.] 11:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys, thanks for finally putting aside your "battle" and your unnecessary comments. Let me try to address Computer1200's concerns.

Computer1200 - you seem to want to set a threshold for this article at a level of scientific proof. However, that is not necessary for any article to exist. More importantly, the article has never claimed that "Asian fetish" is some kind of psychological disorder or pathological obsession. Obviously writers and journalists have referred to this term - to name a few -. The disagreements about this term only drive us to make sure that different views are represented on how this term is used. NPOV does not mean "no" POV, it means that we maintain a "neutral" POV by presenting opposing views.


Whether or not "Asian fetish" is any different from an attraction to something like status or income or the colour of one's eyes is not for us to make a judgement call upon. This article seems to attract a lot of editors that have some strong opinions on the term, and this point is just one of many that these editors have disagreed upon based on their own personal opinions. However, we should not try to inject our own personal opinions in the article. If there are sources that compares such attraction with "Asian fetish", whether or not they're different or similar, then we can include it. The lack of "Rock star fetish" or "Millionaire fetish" does not necessitate that this article should not exist. If there are sources out there that discuss such other "fetish", then we can even create these articles.

::Let me expound a bit more on my comments concerning the difference between an attraction and a fetish. First of all, as it has been pointed out, the term as it stands is technically slang, as the term "fetish" cannot be used as it is being used colloquially. As it is being used, a more accurate term would be "obsession." Which leads us to the difference that really must be struck here in this article if many are to ever be satisfied with it. We must be very clear to distinguish between an asian "obsession" and an asian "attraction." To ''not'' make this distinction is dangerous. It implies that any non-Asian male who would date an Asian women has an "obsession" with Asian women. Let me be clear that just because I have dated quite a few Asian women, I do not have an obsession with them. I date many white women also, and am very equally attracted to white women. It offends me (and many others) when Asians do not give the simple respect of making it clear that there is a difference between an attraction for Asians and an unhealthy obsession for them.

::Also, let me be clear that I am not trying to argue that there are not mentally unstable non-Asian men who might have an odd obsession with Asian women. But we must be careful here. Number one: there are unstable men of all races (including Asian) with unhealthy obsessions for women. For us to focus so much on the minority here that would have wierd obsessions is not accurate, and we need to make it clear that there are many good and healthy interracial relationships. Also, is the non-Asian male obsession with Asian women so unique as we contend in this article? There are plenty of non-Asian men who have wierd obsessions for black women, latino women, european women, and the list goes on. And of course, many men have perfectly natural and appropriate attractions toward these women. Please understand: Asian women in no way have the market cornered here, although they are perfectly respectable and unique in their own right. ] 11:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

On how Asian fetish relates to violence toward Asian women - this is something that had been written about on the heels of the Michael Lohman case, most notably by AsianWeek. It's not something that's just inserted out of nowhere. It's sourced information. Even the organising director of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (yes, an Asian woman) mentioned Asian fetish as it relates to violence toward Asian women. I understand why people do not want this information included, but WP is not here to censor what editors personally believe to be "dangerous information". If the source of the information is carefully attributed, then it should be included. Right now, the article does not include this information, and I personally won't put it in because it would probably set off a revert war. But I would not be against its inclusion as long as the information is carefully attributed to the source within the body of the article.

:::But we still have a problem. I do not hear any qualifier indicating that this "fetish" — that might lead to violence — is characteristic of a small minority. Also, we've not made it clear that male obsession with women (of any race) is ''not'' something unique only to non-Asian men / Asian women. I will agree completely that some non-Asian men have treated Asian women badly; but I will not agree in any way that they are the majority, as this article -- and many Asians -- seems to believe, imply, and advertise. I will be vigilant with this article as long as this issue is not addressed. Again, I think we must work to make the article reflect the reality that the great majority of men who have simple attraction for women of any race are perfectly normal. When these points are made clear, it would seem appropriate to bring up the fact that there might have been a few cases where this odd obsession lead to violence.] 11:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

On a last note - this article has been through three AfDs already, and each time, the decision was to keep the article. Yet there are still editors who wish to just do away with the article altogether. I do wonder when such editors will start working to improve the article instead. If the article had been deleted in any of the AfDs, then so be it, and I wouldn't have tried to revive it. But clearly the WP community has decided not once, but three times, that the article is worth keeping. So let's improve the article instead of continually trying to get rid of it. Personally, I only want the article to be NPOV - I am just as much against taking out the section about how the term is used to condemn interracial relationships, as I am against taking out the section that condemns the trend of Asian fetish.

:::Agreed, Gong. I will help you work for this.] 11:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And believe it or not, it is not just a bunch of Asian guys that have nothing better to do with their time that has raised the issue of of Asian fetish - yes, Asian women have too. Again, I won't mention my own personal feelings toward it, but just like some of you have said that you know Asian women that are tired of Asian men that complain about Asian fetish, I also know Asian women that are sick of Asian fetish, and are quick to label any non-Asian men to have a case of Asian fetish whenever these men try to hit on them with their poor Chinese or Korean or Japanese language skills. But this is completely pointless. Our anecdotal evidence is irrelevant, Asian men and Asian women do not operate on a hive mind, and their opinions on this subject range on different spectrums of the issue. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 16:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Well noted. I am not arguing that an odd obsession for Asian women might not exist out there. Men sometimes have odd obsessions with women all the time. And I agree that theree are sometimes unbalanced non-Asian men who treat Asian women disrespectfully. And though my Asian women friends have complained about Asian men, I have no doubt that sometimes other Asian women would complain about non-Asian men. But maybe we can agree on this: as I have said before, unbalanced men of any race are the minority. When we are not disciplined about enforcing this truth, it leads to racism, whether non-Asian to Asian, or Asian to non-Asian.

:::Let's work toward something valuable, fair, and that we can all agree on here.] 11:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

::Computer1200s attempt at formalist parlance is very cute. BTW if you paraphrase me on something please don't cut out the relvent point. I said it is hard to find teh term "Asian Fetish" in citation indexes because its probably the case that a more technical term is used to refer to it. Sure enough, there are articles in the journals I mentioned above of the exotification of Asian women by western whites in the United States. Further your interpretation fo why no such term exist is erronous. It again reveals your obvious bias towards this topic (which probably stems from the fact that you beleive you yourself has something similiar to what it describes), the fact is before African American studies and academics started to research, most of the issues that they face, were rarely written upon. Infact, prior to the 1950s many "white" studies showed that AFricans were poor because for a lack of a better word "they were inferior." Studies showing how the average African American died before your average white and how they wern't as physically adept, thse were all common notions. Of course, no one till the 50s and 60s, when more level-heads began to prevail and African American academics started to come onto their own, pointed out that institional racism pushing Africans Americans into poverty was the reason for abject state of affairs.

::Further, the existence of an article as Hong has pointed out is not dependent upon statistical study. Indeed, the lack of such studies dosn't even imply that the subject is vacaous. It just implies the subject has not been researched on. Again, from my vantage, I observe that within 2 - 5 years this topic will have many useful citations in the relvent journals. However, given that no such statistics exist you can't even state that null-hypothesis either, so really your position is moot in that sense. However, the epistomology of the phenemon known colluqoially as "Asian Fetish," is not hinged on strict classical scientific research. This is a social phenemonon. Many things cannot be shown or proven "scientfiically" absolute that lies in the social field.

::Even racism, most Econometricians can only state, that there is some confidence interval of omited variables biases, which suggest that a certain multi-regression estimator may indicate that some particular factor variable is statistically significently differnt hten the average and hence there exist an unaccoutable 'hidden' reason for this, i.e. racism. Further even something so precise and formal as this is not beyond polemic. But no sound person would state racism dosn't exist because of this uncertainty, it is simply the limitation of the formal system logic of matheamtical languages. Economist know this and they have said as much. I understand you probably don't grasp the subtetly of the statistics or logical syllogisms; but I assure you that if you take those classes when you enter college you will be in a better position to understand the issue that is at the crux.

::Also words like "Imperialism" also have no formal scientific meaning, however, no one denies such things occured. You are essentially stating that "No Scientific evidence" => "Non-existence" which is an absurdity, as this is equivelent to "existence" => "Scientific Evidence." No scientist believes their methods are so absolute and ubiquitious that they may find evidence for all of "reality." If no evidence exist, scientist can only state that they just have not observed it thus far. They admit they are hindred by the tools they are given. However, I don't think any person who studies social science or humanities at any profound level would be confused by tehse points. I am stating this for your benefit since you have not yet entered higher education.

::Thus the crux is that Asian Fetish is an issue both merited in futuer statistical studies and humanities. Currently it is mostly in the humanities and is indeed a social phenenon. Your supposed devotion and insistence that it be 'formally' and rigroriously defined is merely a verisimilitude of objectivity. It is a pedestarian attempt at that, then again, exactly what I would expect from a adolescent mind. It is quite clear that you yourself woudln't even begin to undrstand exactly what a rigorious definiton would encompass.

::If we were to use your supposed model of 'merit' then subjects like racism, sexism, imperalism, indeed bias in general would not be worthy of a wikipedia entry. Many of theese tems derive their studies for histeographical sources not formal mathematical rigor. Yet, the notion that formal mathematical rigor (which is exactly what would be needed for your definition) is the end all be all is a notion that would only originate from soemone who is ignorant of that rigor. Again this is merely for your benefit as I'm sure most of us adults in academia knows this issue very well. Really all that needs to be shown for the merit of this articles existence, from a strictly academic viewpoint, is to show that such a phenemonon appears in at least one formal journal article. To my count this has already been demonstrated, hence its existence is without question.

::All other statements you made were superflous and need no commenting. Now back to real work, Lindentree, have you been able to get a hold of any of the journals i've mentioned? Please let me know ASAP I'd like you to do some searches within those journals for me if that's possible. Again thanks for being a sport with diong some of the leg work while the rest of us are in temporarily unabled ] 18:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiIsforLamers - can you please try to get your point across without inserting snide remarks here and there? It's inflammatory and definitely not helpful. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 18:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

:Which "snide" remarks are those? Perhaps you should direct this request to Computer1200.] 18:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
::Well, for one, you can stop insinuating that Computer1200 is uneducated and cannot grasp the logic of what you're talking about. And you should be well aware that I would be just as much against snide remarks coming from him as well. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 19:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

:::My current position is not that Computer1200 is "undereducated" just that he should enter college before he starts to attempt to think profoundly about anything. I'm sure he's exactly where he needs to be for his age. Further, I'm only making comments from my observations.] 19:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Try ]. That goes for both of you. I don't care what you think of each other, I'm really not interested in reading about it, and this is not the place for it. If you two are so interested in talking about each other, I suggest either ] or ]. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 23:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

::::All I am trying to do is save the English language from your militant personal agenda. It is perfectly logical and reasonable to insist that words of academic study have a consistent and clear pattern of usage before we trumpet them as perfect representatives of reality. Sorry, I do not trust you to make that judgment for the rest of us who use English, and no, sorry, just because it is used in ''one'' journal does not make it indicative of reality. Your example of racism is perfectly moot. Everyone agrees on the ''idea'' of racism whether we think it exists or not. For our purposes, not everyone agrees on the ''idea'' of your "Asian Fetish" that you have chosen to defend to the point that you would use insults and invective to try to shut out other voices.

::::In anycase, I do not doubt that there are odd non-Asians with obsessions for Asian women — just like there are odd Asian men with obsessions for non-Asian women. That is not my argument. My concern is that while you try to create a phenomenon that would narrowly define me, that this phenomenon is represented as 1) an issue of a small minority, and 2) not unique to just non-Asian male / AF relationships, as you would insist. I assure you I will always be around to make sure that these points are recognized, regardless of whether or not you revert to schoolboy insults, which betrays stunning immaturity. Cheers.] 12:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"I will agree completely that some non-Asian men have treated Asian women badly; but I will not agree in any way that they are the majority, as this article -- and many Asians -- seems to believe, imply, and advertise."

"But maybe we can agree on this: as I have said before, unbalanced men of any race are the minority."

Where are the sources for your statistics?


:::Haha. Good try, Wiki, but guess who's responsibility it is to prove that more than the tiny minority have your purported Asian obsession? Um. That would be you. I did not start this article, with it's lack of clarification. You are rabid about making this claim, and supporting the crux of this article. The burden of proof is on you. So prove that it is true. However, if there is anything anecdotal that would seem to be common street sense, it is that when you have an obsession with something that you are painting across a racial context, then usually that affects a tiny minority of said racial group — elementary Social Science. If not, then you need to show proof. Sorry.

:::I like your statement above: "the epistomology of the phenemon known colluqoially as "Asian Fetish," is not hinged on strict classical scientific research. This is a social phenemonon . Many things cannot be shown or proven "scientfiically" absolute that lies in the social field. " Well, that sure is convenient for you, isn't it? You can say that ''anything'' is true and — poof! — it's true. No need to be upset with scientific inquiry, huh? Sorry, not going to happen. And it's a little scary that you think you have the right to define a whole people group with no proof of your claim, and with no willingness to at least modulate the claim to be directed at the small minority. So again, you need to show proof of your claim.

:::Incidentally, the Social Sciences are littered with quantitative studies, empirical data and scientific research. On the Social Sciences: '''"Some social science subfields have become very quantitative in methodology or behavioral in approach."''' So find some studies that have done research on your "Asian Fetish" and make sure that they give us some data about how many people this affects in the non-Asian sample. Thanks.] 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::Tsk tsk tsk. Again Computer1200s incomprehension of abstract thinking and basic Statistics as well as the fact the he is a tyro in higher learning (how's your SAT studying going by the way?) seems to continue to obfucaste his grasp of reality. The point is there exist articles that discuss the Asian Fetish phenemenon. Academically the subject exists, further, research is burgeoning in Asian American studies and increasingly this topic has been mentioned, either as notes in journals or current doctoral researches. Further, it continues to confuse me why someone who is obviosully so ignorant in the tools of science (mathematics and statistics) continues to lionize it as the only acceptable ctiterian of relevence. In any event, triffling diletentism aside, I have never stated that "Asian Fetish" is currently a scientific subject. It is obviouslly a subject within the humanities.

::::: I see you have confused my point about Econometericians and have somehow now stating "Social Sciences are littered with quant implies this should be." Again since I have stated that it is a humanities subject, your point is not salient. However, for humors sake let us delve into this point. Again it is not so much the issue that quantitative research is occuring. This has been so since the neo-classical revolution in Economics fifty years hence and it has been so in Political Science since the 1980s with teh application of non-cooperative/cooperative Game Theory (at least the PhD level). Of course econometrics/statistics has also played a huge part in Psychology and its derivatives since the 1960s as well. The issue my young tyro is not that research is occuring; it's that the results of those research are not so clear cut as you may beleive.

::::: Now, I am very aware that words like confidence intervals, and heteredeskasity, or variable interaction, logarithemic specification, measure-theoretic approximation, GLS, continuity etc. are totally ignorant to you. Inded, they will probably never occupy even a fanciful position in your mind. That's ok, I am a beleiver of the division of labor and I accept (unlike yourself) that even if someone is incapable of grasping the most prodigious depths (perhaps in this case the shallowest waters) of abstraction, it does not preclude him from being a productive member of society (far from it). Yet, this ignorance, I believe, has lulled you into a false senes that "quant = truth." This is certainly not the case, and as I have stated prior, Econometrics reserach has not been able to even definetilvely conclude that racism exist. Indeed, quantitative research will never be able to prove many of the observable social pheneonenons exist. Imperialism for instance, how do we prove that it occured? How can we even measure it? Of course since its an old field, it has many citations in the historical and political subjects; but this is -as you should know -far from definitive conclusion of its "measurable existence."

::::: The statements that quants can make come with many many antecdents and specifications; it is the ignorant that transmute those very precise statements into the imprecise lay vernacular and hence state somethign that reserach not substantiated. "Asian Fetish," is a humanities subject, like Imperialism, like African American studies, Racism, Feminism even. It is a legitimate subject of the humanities and proof positive of this is the fact that PhDs are currently being outputted and worked on in this topic and in Asian American studies. I can tell your very intrested in quant and I think you should try to take as many quantiative courses in college as you can. I would recommend to complete a intial Calculus sequence up to multivariable level. THen perhaps you can you take some Real Analysis, this will give you a more soudn undersatnding of Meature-Theoretic probabilty and from there; it's just a hop skip away to applied statistics and econometrcis. Of course, many people can't handle these subjects for sundry reasons. But, perhaps you can sit-in that way you won't risk a C or lower and you'll still get the feel of the subject. Good luck on the SAT and hit those books hard!! ] 22:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::: Wow, Wiki, your pseudo-intellectual masturbation is so truly impressive! Trust me, buddy, just because you can throw around a list of scientific terms that you looked up does ''not'' make you look smart. You spent half of your rant making another goofy attempt to insult me. Again, i really just have to laugh at that. But it doesn't matter. You can come up with as many articles on "asian fetish" you like. But be perfectly clear: I will not allow you to dominate this article — EVER.

::::::And no, I've not confused anything at all, Wiki. Let me spell it out for you: you are rabidly claiming that there is a phenomenon called "Asian Fetish." OK, fine. I don't like the term, because I think "obsession" is closer to what you mean. But I don't think it should be hard for you to understand that you cannot simply say something is true without showing evidence, especially for an inflammatory issue like this. And here's the kick, buddy: if you ''cannot'' show us that you have conclusive proof of this condition and then show ''prevalence'', then guess what? ''It's a slang term'', it is anecdotal, and it does not belong in WP. And further, you ''cannot'' assume that this supposed "fetish" affects the majority of ''any'' group. If you want to make a sensational claim like that, Wiki, ''you need to prove it''. How will you prove it? I don't know, That's your problem. I'm not the one throwing around claims that offend whole groups of people. But I will not allow you to make claims that many say are false. You have to prove them. Sorry about that.

::::::This is the crux of my point: I don't care how you do it, but if you are determined to force this issue in a way that massages your personal anger, then get ready for opposition. You might as well get used to my presence. This is what you better make sure is in your revelational presentation forthcoming from the clouds that will put all the evil non-Asians in their place:

::::::1. You better find a way to show conclusively that any kind of "obsession" with Asian women is a small minority. If you cannot do that, I will make sure that it is included.
::::::2. You better find a way to show that there is a difference between common attraction and an unhealthy obsession.

::::::Well, that's it for now. I do look forward to your next round of insults! Cheers.] 05:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::::"Dominate the page," hmmm.... calm down Computer1200, you don't want to get too stressed, at your age; you'll grow alot of zitz. Calm down junior, your in adult-land now, not the playground. Actually,Computer1200, they are statistical testing concepts, and anyone who has taken even the basic level statistics or econometrics in Undergraduate should be familiar with all but the masure theoretic probability. This is how I know you didn't go to college, otherwise you'd be familiar with some these ideas, or if you did go to college as you claim, you must have studied the humanities or something unprofound and trivial. Of course given your demonstrable ineruditeness in the cant of the humanities, we'll scratch off that possibility; whence we make the conclusion that you studied some sort of dreg. However, as I have stated before, I give you more credit then that and I know your'e currently working prodigiously to take the SAT next month.

::::::::Further Computer1200, you are confusing the relevent issue here. Again I will forgive you, my young tyro, for doing so. This is a great lesson for you, however, in the process of critical thinking. I actaully don't ahve to prove anything; because if I proved or disproved something, it would be original research. Of course perhaps I do engage in some ancillary research and am able to prove the existence of the pheneomenon in a statistically significent manner (and before you retort on that term, I suggest you crack out a intro statistics text and educate yourself on exactly what "significent" means in the formal senese), it would still not be relevent to wikipedia until it has gone through a refereed peer journal. Then again, that assumes this subject belongs in applied probabilit/applied statistics.

::::::::The key issue is that Misplaced Pages is primarily concenred with the existence of the subject withinin some set of citations. You, have made the logical fallacy of equating some kind of nebulous "truth" to "Misplaced Pages relevence." This is wrong. As an encylcopedia, Misplaced Pages can only be concerned with what has been published either in some peer review journal, or monograph, or magazine, or within some sort of tome. Hence, all I need to do is collect enough citations to show that there is a sufficient body material to merit the existence of an entry. This has already been done, however, I'm going to wait till more formal research has been collected or published. That is why I havn't changed the article as of yet; while i'm visiting others, i don't have access to the cournocopia of material that exist out there.

::::::::Oh BTW, no one is saying this occurs in the "majority" or "minority" they merely state it exist. I can guess that you havn't taken any subject that requires the formal idea of "proof" or requiring formal langauges because you sure have a feeble command of logic. The only "group" of people that could possibly be "offended" by this article are Asian fetishest. No one claims "Asian Fetishest" CONTAINS "Non-Asian" Peoples. We may say the converse is true, but no one is saying the former is true, to say anything about equality, the much stronger case. In any event, i've never deigned to know the exact statistical reality; how could I? I only state that it is a legitmate subject within academia and that there are citations that merit its entry into the encyclopedia.

::::::::In any event Computer1200, I recommend that you hit the books ASAP, July is upon us and you don't want to be caught with your pants down so to speak. You are not doing anything productive here, your mind seems to be so dearth of anything relevent to say and so replete with inconsistency, that it certainly would be a waste of time to respond to you; had I not find that doing so is so entertaining. Good luck with the SAT!!!!! 800/800 ] 03:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::Hey buddy, you're getting better all the time at this funny SAT bit. That's so cute! But you're right, WikiIsForLamers, you're right. I studied plumbing in college because I'm one of those dumb white guys, remember? Haha.

:::::::::In anycase, Wiki, I love how you have arbitrarily decided by yourself that this issue is not the Social Sciences, but The Humanities. The fact is that it doesn't matter. This is actually a Cultural Studies issue, which can overlap both the Social Sciences and The Humanities, depending on the angle. "Additional subjects sometimes included in the humanities are anthropology, area studies, communications and cultural studies, although these are often regarded as social sciences." ] . Oops. Sorry about that. Further, there is no reason why this cannot be studied empirically, and as I mentioned before that has a lot to do with research methods. Obviously, the reason you are rabidly avoiding this area is because you have absolutely no sources to show ''anything'' empirically. Kudos on the strategy of avoiding empirical proof. I would do the same thing in your weak position. That is why you had to retreat in to The Humanities. But the fact is, I don't really care. And don't tell me that you cannot measure prevalence with regard to psychological disorders (that is what you think Asian "fetish" is right? If not, it's just ordinary attraction.) If the statistics are not there, then that means the numbers are not either. And there goes your hard proof. Oops again, wiki. So now we're left with subjective Cultural Studies journals and controversial pop-culture books like Prasso's piece to back up your argument.

:::::::::Now. I have never said that an obsession for Asian women does not exist. But a very clear qualification will be made that speaks to the fact that these kinds of obsessions (As Asians describe it, it is a bizarre disorder that any non-Asian male has who relates to Asian women) like this are in the small minority. I will be using respected sources and journals from the Psychological community to show this fact.

:::::::::Well, I better go and study for my SAT. Haha. (I just think you're little attempts at condescension are great!) Cheers.] 05:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::It is easier if you give me the sources that proves it is a minority. You already have the sources.
] 15:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

::Most of what Computer1200 states is superogatory. He is currently practiincg for the verbal section on the SAT so we forgive him for his practicing english writing and verbal structure on this page. But, as noted, his statements are not at the core of the matter we are discussing, they are periphrial. ] 05:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

:::WikiIsforLamers - Why can't you put away the snide remarks? Anyway, the article does not state that ''most'' white men who are attracted to Asian women are cases of Asian fetish. The article does not comment on exactly how many white men can be considered to have Asian fetish at all. And also I want to emphasize that the article is not about interracial relationship. It's about a type of attraction. You don't have to be in a relationship with someone to be attracted to someone. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 14:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Hong: you are going to have problems with all non-Asians until you qualify your statements by making it clear that this "fetish" is something that affects the small minority of non-Asian men. The other point that needs clarification is the difference between an obsession (which I think is a better word for this than fetish), and a simple, natural, healthy attraction. I think these points are entirely appropriate here in light of how sensitive this topic is. I still feel the article should be scrapped altogether, but if you insist that it stay, I will be vigilant for these issues.] 20:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::I don't have a problem with that. No matter how the article looks, it's going to have people coming here, from ''both'' sides of the argument, ranting and raving about how it's bias. I'm pretty resigned to that fact. Quantifying that it's only a "minority" of non-Asian men who are attracted to Asian women that can be labeled as Asian fetish is problematic firstly because I'm not aware we have sources to confirm that, and secondly because I'm sure there will be editors who are on the opposite side of the fence that would like to see it say that it's actually a "majority" of non-Asian men. Right now, it's completely neutral on exactly how many non-Asian men have Asian fetish. I would prefer it stay that way unless there are some articles or something that makes a claim about quantity. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 20:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

== Sources are not reliable, Article overly biased and propaganda ==

This article is biased for pro-interracial marriage. Most, if not all, of the sources cited contain original research and lack references. Some sources promote contradictory arguments and stereotypes of Asians. For instance, on this pro-intermarriage site:

{{cite news |url=http://www.colorq.org/Articles/article.aspx?d=2005&x=deconstruct
| title=Deconstructing "Asian fetish" - the appeal of physical appearance and/or cultural traits
| publisher= ColorQ World: interracial interactions between people of color
| pages= | date= | accessdate=
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Asian fetish/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Asian fetish/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
{{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=120|index=Talk:Asian fetish/Archive index}}


== Critique of section: "History" ==
Has these stereotypical statements:

"anti-Asian fetish camp would begrudge a woman the right to prefer tall guys or short guys, or whatever preferred physical characteristic as the case may be."

That statement is implying that Asian men are short, which is a stereotype. This is also implying that some genetic or cultural traits of Asian men are inferior.

"Perhaps her spouse's East Asian trait of preferring 'tolerance' over 'truth' in conflict situations is what preserved her marriage so far. Most people do have difficulty living with someone so full of sensitive self-righteousness and quick anger. I am not at all implying all East Asian men will put up with such negative personalities, or that there are no Western men who can handle a woman like that, just that there might be a higher likelihood in Eastern cultures than in Western cultures of finding an individual who can put aside the abstract principles of 'truth' and 'rightness' in favor of the tolerance and compromise that make the day-to-day living-together bearable. The New Scientist article Westerners and Easterners see the world differently provides some insight into this cultural difference."

This is a stereotype implying that Asian men are male chauvinists.

"These non-Asians-who-love-Asian-culture-and-people may have spent years dabbling in Eastern religions, typically utilizing Buddhist meditation to get the physiological "feel good" benefits. Yet they picked up none of the Buddhist values of understanding, tolerance, compassion and consideration for others. They remain very selfish and unable to see beyond their own interests. Indeed, their whole interest in Eastern religions (and people) is all about "me, me, me", e.g. using meditation to feel good about themselves instead of actually transcending the self."

This is assuming that most East Asians are religious. However, roughly 50% of Chinese are non-religious. That means 50% of yellows are non-religious, since the non-PRC people are small.

That article is not a reference, it is an editorial. I believe it has to moved to the editorial section in the external links. The article claims many stereotypes, but does not cite the sources. There is no name of the author in the "editorial".

I believe that saying that "some non-Asian men that attracted to Asian women are only attracted to their culture" is false. I believe that non-Asian men saying that they are only attracted to Asian culture is propaganda. Saying that they are only attracted to Asian culture, instead of their stereotypical physical features, is an excuse from their unhealthy Asian attraction.

In my opinion, it seems suspicious that some non-Asian men saying that they are only attracted to "East Asian" culture. Why are they attracted to the culture of the "yellow" race when its culture is very diverse? Why are they not attracted to "non-yellow" culture, say, Indian culture?

Indian culture and Southeast Asian culture are more similar than Southeast Asian culture and East Asian culture. Why are non-Asian men attracted to the yellow cultures when Indian culture is more similar to southeast culture? It seems like Asian fetish.

I also believe that non-Asian men saying mail-order bribes are beneficial because it saves yellow women from poverty, is propaganda. Why are not there any mail-order brides in the poorer, non-yellow countries, such as India?

This article, that I strongly believe, including the sources are overly biased for interracial marriage and contains an overwhelming load of propaganda and deception.

] 19:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks for your input, there is no doubt that this article has been hijacked by some adolescent trolls. However, we are currently looking to more formal research in lieu of "reverting" the article on a whim. If you have any suggestions on articles that are in Asian American studies, we would appreciate that you post them so we may puruse the material. ] 20:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Another editor raised similar concerns in the 'Context for sources' section, which I tried to address. Also, while the sources may be biased towards a particular POV, none of the material you cited actually appears in the article, so I don't think the article, as it stands, is particularly unbalanced. ] 20:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

== The genetic femininity is untrue ==

I am surprised of the lack of knowledge, analytical thinking skills, and divergent thinking skills that the Asian fetishists have. The amount of testosterone does not necessary make a person look and behave more masculine. ] sensibility is also a major factor. Apes look and behave more masculine but have MUCH LESS testosterone than humans.

Asian fetishists, in my opinion, are attracted to Asian women because they think that the femininity of Asians is genetic. However, it is PROVEN to be totally environmental. If the Asian fetishists know that the femininity of Asians is not genetic, then they would not be attracted to Asians anymore. They will realize that marrying a "feminine" Asian is equivalent to marrying a unhealthy stunted white women.

The "femininity" of Asians is affected by their diet that does not promote as much testosterone as whites do, their culture, and their lack of exercise. (see ])

No more discussing of how Asians are feminine because of genetic factors. Not because it is original research nor politically incorrect, but it's PROVEN to be untrue. Cultural factors, such as nutrition, made Asian women physically appear feminine.

] 20:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

::Exactly where are you getting this? The article does not, from my knowledge, state anything about genetics. Reductionist conception of moving this to "biology" is falacious and there exist no salient papers that are reputable taht have indicated a link. ] 20:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Um, from what I've read, most Asian fetishists justify their attraction on the basis of cultural factors rather than genetic. I don't think anybody is seriously arguing Asian women are genetically more feminine. ] 20:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

::::"Um, from what I've read, most Asian fetishists justify their attraction on the basis of cultural factors rather than genetic."

:::::New Editor, if you are an academic or currently attending undergraduate or graduate school and have access to citation resources could you please read my request for journal information section. I'm looking for articles in thsoe journals, i know they have dealt with Asian American images before, I'd imagine that they'd be a good place to start looking to rebuilding this article. ] 20:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Like I said in the previous post, some Asian fetishists say that they are attracted to their culture AS AN EXCUSE for their attraction to their stereotypical physical features.

::::"Exactly where are you getting this?"

::::There are many people discussing in the talk page planning to add a biology section to this article, which contains misinformation.

] 20:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::Generally, Asian fetish is not considered a true sexual fetish in that it's NOT based on pathological obsession with physical features. Historical and cultural stereotypes probably play more of a role in creating it, and are arguably the most problematic for Asian women. ] 20:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Lindentree while I appreciate the comment, we should really get to work on finding the research. Our own analysis on the topic, however discerning and penetrating, does not help us reconstruct this article. Further, I don't think there is any "one" type of fetishest, but that is apropros to the task at hand. ] 21:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Attention Wikiisforlamers. i thought I would find this guy here. Visit the discussion on height and race and this user also claims chinese people are a superior race of intelligence and of genetic potential for height. You'll see many uses who report from reliable sources the they have an average of low 170's cm and they are quickly labeled White supremacists in CAPITALS and with many !!!!!. Like he irrelevantly brought in testosterone and asian male femininity he brings in IQ and brain size in the dicussion of height and race. He will go as far as saying skin whiteners, eating rice and soy products are environmental factors as well as avoiding sunlight will significanty affect height. You can toy around if you wish but don't waste your time with him if you have better things to do. Cheers Googen:)

::Listen Unfreeride, do not omit comments here from Googen. This is not spam. It is a remark about someone who is trying to be a part of editing this article. The above needs to be said about WikiIsforLamers. If he wants to post, then the truth should be known about who he really is and what he stands for. He has already proven that he is racist, so that's no surprise. But I will make sure this is known about him in this forum as it is necessary to show who he really is. Again: do not omit. (By the way, I tried to revert earlier and did not press "Save Page" so I had to do it again, and mistakenly thought someone had erased my comments also earlier.) ] 06:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

THIS.IS.NOT.A.FORUM. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 08:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

::Hong, this is a ''discussion page'' for the article. The information is valid and belongs on the discussion page. It's really about accountability. The reason there is so much accountability with Wiki editors is because we should all know where someone is coming from.] 18:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As someone who is fairly sure he has an Asian fetish (if that exists), I can honestly say I couldn't care less about "culture". I find Asian women's faces, bodies, and hair very hot, much more so than not just white women, but women of any race. Is this necessarily a bad thing? I don't think it should be, but I'm embarassed enough by it to not reveal it, and I never date or go out with two different Asian women consecutively simply to dissuade the suggestions that I might. Even this isn't enough to stop my friends from saying I've got the Yellow Epidemic. It may be just me, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of other people ARE in fact using "culture" as an excuse. ] 00:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

== Prasso's book ==

I don't have access to academic journals, but I do know that a large part of Prasso's book is devoted exactly to the topic of Asian fetish. I've flipped through the book at the book store, but I don't think I'm really interested enough in the subject matter to actually read the whole book so I'm not going to buy it. However I would recommend it as a source if one of you is willing to spend the money on it. I know that it covers a bit of history on the West's sexual fascination with Asian women. As far as Prasso's credentials are concerned, from what I remember from the back of the book, she has a master's degree in Social Anthropology, and she has had over 15 years of experience writing about Asia as a journalist for some very notable publications. Of course, this doesn't necessarily make her the last authority on this controversial subject matter, which is why it's important that we attribute her as a source within the body of the article itself if we do take material from her book. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 01:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:I've read it, and it does have some interesting material. However, she makes questionable connections, such as Asian fetish having its roots in pedophilia. I might be able to get a copy at the library and re-read it for useful content. ] 02:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

::I've been put on a queue for this book from a local library system near my friend's house. Looks like they have a some sort of loan-system so I may be able to take some research afterall. Are there any other books that comes to mind? ] 05:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

== Asian is ambiguous ==

"Asian" means South Asians in the UK. Asian Americans include Indians.

The article ] defines: ''Chink is a derogatory ethnic slur for someone of Chinese descent, now used as an epithet against East Asians.'' It does not link to Southeast Asians.

There is a such thing as yellow people. These people are from East Asia and sometimes Southeast Asia. Just because you got offended by the term "yellow people," it does not mean other East Asians will get offended.

Look at ]. Singapore, Vietnam are also considered East Asian.

Not all Southeast Asians are yellow people. Almost all East Asians are yellow people.

So I suggest changing the first sentence to "East Asians": Asian fetish is a slang term meaning the sexual preference for East Asian people.

Or "Asian fetish is a slang term meaning the sexual preference for East Asian and some Southeast Asian people.", just like ]

But the most accurate is to use "yellow people" or ] but many will get offended and do not consider a word.

] 15:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
:The terms "yellow people" and "Mongoloid" are not the prefered term for Asian people, but they are synonymous with Asian peoples.----<sup><i><font color="darkslateblue">]</font></i></sup><font color="purple">]</font> 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

:Do we have any sources to confirm this? ] <small>(] - ])</small> 15:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

::Look at the article ]. You will find many sources.

:::There are sources on ] that Asian fetish only affects East Asians? ] <small>(] - ])</small> 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

::::Indians are considered Asians. Are Asian fetishists attracted to Indians? No. Southeast Asian include Eastern India. Some Southeast Asians look Indian, but some look more East Asian. Indonesia, Sri Lanka are in Southeast Asia but are "brown people". Vietnamese people are in Southeast Asia but look like "Yellow people"

::::Therefore, yellow people is more accurate since it includes both East Asia and Vietnamese. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:2007-06-18|&#32;2007-06-18|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:::::Wait a minute, I know some asian fetishists that are attracted to Filipinos, they look like Indians. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:::::So... going back to my original question - are there sources for this? That people with an Asian fetish categorically do not "have a thing" for Indians or other South Asians? ] <small>(] - ])</small> 15:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

::::::The slang term for "Asian fetish" is usually used in the United States. In the United States, the word Asian is commonly used to denote yellow people. Most of the articles mentioning Asian fetish is written in the United States. Therefore, the authors for the articles live in the United States, the word Asian is commonly used to denote yellow people, so Asian and yellow people are used '''interchangebly'' in the United States (unlike other countries such as the UK).

::::::Twinkie, white rice, and banana are used by '''Asian fetishists''' commonly referred to Asian women who are white in the inside but '''''yellow''''' on the outside. Search on google for these terms.

::::::There are '''''tons''''' of articles discussing "Asian fetish" and "pretty yellow skin". There are '''''no''''' articles discussing "Asian fetish" and brown skin.

::::::For instance an article: "The so-called 'Asian fetish' (which typically targets only East Asians/Southeast Asians)" http://www.colorq.org/Articles/article.aspx?d=2005&x=deconstruct

] 15:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the fact that the term "Asian" is usually used to mean East Asians does not mean that it is used to ''exclusively'' mean East Asians. It's definitely been used to mean South Asians as well, even in the US. That's why I'm wondering what sources we have to categorically say that South Asians are not affected by Asian fetish. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 17:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

:Asian Fetish/Yellow fever typically applies to East Asians and Southeast Asians. Generally, Indians are not included --] 18:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
::Asian Indians would be included in the term "Asian fetish" because they are Asian.----<sup><i><font color="darkslateblue">]</font></i></sup><font color="purple">]</font> 22:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, technically South Asians would be "Asian", but are they part of the "Asian Fetish"? I would imagine that they would more likely be lumped into a view sexually dehumanizes them, along with Middle Easterners, as opposed to East Asians. ] 04:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

== The role of Testosterone is oversimplified, ignorant, prejudice, stereotypical, and most importantly does not mention cultural differences ==

See my previous comments at ]

I defend this statements:

* Less muscle mass found among East Asians as compared to Whites

:This is because East Asians devalue exercise. (see ])

* Lower levels of violent crime committed by East Asians

:]. Testosterone level does not necessary correlate to crime level. See ]. A mutation makes a person much more prone to violence, regardless of testosterone level one level. Natural selection can produce certain genes that make a person less violent or more violent.

* Larger average testicular volumes of White males as compared to East Asian males, e.g. a study by Jared Diamond, professor of physiology at UCLA and Pulitzer Prize winner, comparing average testes volumes upon autopsy of Danes and Hong Kong Chinese

:See ] for diet differences that make East Asians and whites different in testosterone. Also see ].

* Possible differences in average penile size, which shows a strong relation to prenatal and childhood testosterone levels, e.g. smaller average penis sizes found among Chinese newborns

:Again, see ] for diet differences (such as isoflavones in soybean products) that make Asians have small penises.

* A lower prevalence of androgenetic alopecia among East Asian men

:Again, see ] and ].

* The higher average life expectancies of women and East Asians, fewer incidences of prostate cancer and heart disease among East Asians(page 9)

:This '''''may''''' be affected by the height of East Asians are shorter (again, effected by cultural and environmental differences instead of genetic differences), or/and the differences in diet.

* The dating discrepancy is not found among East Indian - White couples, East Indians show physical characteristics more similar to Whites than East Asians

:This is because Asian fetishists are attracted to '''yellow''' skin, NOT brown skin. And stereotypes of Oriental culture. Asian fetishists think yellow people are more prettier than brown people.

* The larger number of Black male - White female couples as compared to White male - Black female couples, which may reflect a similar dynamic

:Apes have '''less''' testosterone levels but look masculine. (See ].)
<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:2007-06-19 18:51:41|&#32;2007-06-19 18:51:41|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

He had been trying to add that section for more than a year now. It's some German guy who wants to advance his racist pseudo science. He was banned from the German Misplaced Pages for pulling the same stunts. More importantly, the section is a bunch of stuff strung together by himself that don't necessarily have anything to do with Asian fetish - in other words, ]. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 19:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

== David L. Eng's work ==
The article states 'The first academic treatment of the fetishism of Asian Americans was by Rutgers University associate professor David L. Eng, in his dissertation work at the University of California, Berkeley'. If there is a dissertation on 'Asian fetish', why isn't any material included in this article (which greatly suffers from a lack of academic references)? I see that the reference given is to a book by Eng called 'Racial Castration: Managing Masculinity in Asian America' , a book about Asian American masculinity. Is this book based on his dissertation? Can someone please elaborate on how Professor Eng's work relates to this article? What are the major findings/conclusions on the topic of Asian fetish? There is not much point in just stating that Eng had an academic treatment of the subject, and nothing more. ] 22:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

::From my understanding Dr. Eng's work is mostly in Asian American literature and Feminist theories. I checked his site but unfortunatly his C.V. is not on display. If you have any journal storage sites like JSTOR you could check for older articles by him. Unfortunatly I think the only place to get a hold of his disertation is at the Berkely Library archives. We need more people in academia help us with this article. Without the citations we can't change anything. ] 23:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

:::Below is the citation for Dr. Eng's thesis; however, I don't believe it's directly germane to this topic. Given the similarity in titles, I assume the text "Racial Castration: Managing Masculinity in Asian America" is likely taken directly from his thesis or at least his thesis work.

:::Title: Managing masculinity : race and psychoanalysis in Asian American :::literature / by David Lin Eng
:::Author: Eng, David Lin
:::Date: 1995.
:::Description v, 253 leaves ; 28 cm.
:::Notes Thesis (Ph.D. in Comparative Literature)-- University of California, Berkeley, Dec. 1995.

:::Dr. Eng appears to be more interested in the homosexual aspects of Hwang's cited work than the protagnoist's feminine stereotyping:

:::"Although Rene Gallimard, in David Henry Hwang's drama M. Butterfly, ostensibly addresses the audience from a prison cell, his cell resembles a closet -- a room that confines insofar as it conceals. An analytical reading of their drama is offered, against which the homosexual emerges unhindered & unhinged. By exposing a collusion of spaces -- a collusion of interests -- the structure of Gallimard's closet is deconstructed & the motives underlying its erection & maintenance are examined. Moreover, as Gallimard's sexual orientation is interrogated & his racist investments in his orientalized vision of Song explored, the filtered vision of his tale of heterosexual love gone awry is exposed."

:::I have no interest in pouring through these manuscripts, but as far as I can tell Eng doesn't directly deal with this subject. Can the person who originally picked him as a source please clarify the choice? ] 05:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

::::] 08:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC) // This is one of the main problems with this article. "Asian Fetish" is a slang term used in many different ways by many different people. There is simply no research, empirical or otherwise aside from passing references in weird blogs, or some horrifically racist references to this issue on "Model Minority.com" , or controversial pop culture books like Prasso's — not sufficient at all as robust support for an article in Misplaced Pages. There is just no linguistic center — the semantic center of the term itself to which everyone recognizes, agrees, and responds. Truth is, "asian fetish" belongs in Urban Dictionary.com and not as an article in Misplaced Pages. Some here will continue to contend that its existence is justified simply because a few decided that it should exist. My contention is that that is not good enough. We need to make sure it is worthy to be an article in Misplaced Pages, or we will begin to throw up articles made of words that we all invent everyday, just because 3 or 4 people vote that it is good enough. Indeed, just because it is a slang term is not good enough.

::::'''Again, I move that the article be deleted.'''


:::::::::The article already survived a vote for deletion. The Misplaced Pages community has *ALREADY* decided that this is a valid article to keep. The Asian Fetish syndrome is a REAL pathology whether you choose to accept it or not. Just because the phrase has different meanings does not mean it isn't valid. If it has different meanings, then by all means DOCUMENT and define those various meanings in this article.] 17:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::Actually it survived '''three''' deletion nominations. The article needs improvement, not deletion. ] <small>(] - ])</small> 17:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Since no one has been able to show any connection between Dr. Eng's work and Asian Fetish, and two months have passed, I will delete this entry. ] 23:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

==This could just be an attraction==
How is prefering Asian features any different from prefering blondes?

::I don't know who you are, but you have a good point. Being half-white and half-yellow, I wonder if race really matters.

==An Answer for You==

Are blondes perpetuated as better looking/more preferable through the media and in porno? You can choose to be blonde but you cannot choose to be Asian. That is why this is a form of behavior that is race specific.

Unless they are born blonde, blonde hair does not look natural.


::] 23:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Well, what we have here is the classic Asian belief that somehow an attraction for Asian women is COMPLETELY and ABSOLUTELY unique from any other attraction that white men can have for women. They are obsessive about their contention that it is always a racist pathology. And any other attraction white men have for other races of women is NEVER as important or intense. If it weren't so completely funny, it would be desperately arrogant. Oh, and this question is hilarious: "Are blondes perpetuated as better looking/more preferable through the media and in porno?" ANSWER: are you completely retarded?! ''Of course they are.'' Asian women are NOT the only stereotypes promoted via pornography. And Asian women are not somehow promoted as "the most preferable" in any way, buddy. It is simply breathtaking how silly and ignorant that question is. It's hard for you to believe that I might actually prefer a white woman, isn't it? I'm simply lying, right? Trust me, buddy: there are incredibly exquisite, beautiful white women who I would choose over any asian woman any day of the week. Sorry about that.

::The Asian community here (majority being asian men) is insisting that when I have a relationship with an asian woman, it is simply because of their race. They also imply that somehow Asian women are the most beautiful in the world. It's almost like us poor white men simply ''cannot help but be swept into this odd, racist obsession with Asian women''. Sorry, not true. Trust me: although there are some great, attractive asian women I've known and had relationships with, in the end I prefer latina, black or white. No need to get into the reasons, but that is my case. And let's make something else very clear: there are hordes of very unattractive, odd Asian women. ''Noone'' is going to simply fall at their feet just because they are asian — ''trust me''.

::The truth is that men are attracted to women, ''when they find them attractive''. I find blondes very attractive; latina women are incredibly beautiful; black women have a beauty all to their own; I almost married a gorgeous redhead; I have dated attractive asian women. These relationships all grew from the fact that I simply was attracted to these women -- of different racial makeups -- for various reasons. But be careful! The Asian community refuses to accept that white men can have a simple attraction for Asian women, without it being some "fetish" or some odd, weird, obsessive behavior. Now, I don't mean to say all asians; I have some really great asian friends, including asian male friends. We all date cross-racially a lot. It's not a problem at all for any confident, level-headed Asian man to see a white guy with an Asian women, because he knows it is not an affront on his identity, and that if he wants to, he can also date white women. But don't worry, I'll be watching this article very closely. I also invite other level-headed white or asian men to join in the watching of this article. To be honest, the arguments being put forth are so completely baseless, or flat silly, that it's just not very hard to refute their points.

:::What about level-headed white-asian mixed men? Anyway, you mentioned good points, white men won't go for asian women just because they're asian and vice versa, they have to have traits that attract each other.

:::You don't need to get mad. Simply point out that ] isn't always based on physical attraction.

== The Vanessa Hue paragraph ==

I can not see that the article cited has anything to do with "the sexual preference for Asian people", as Asian fetish is defined. Furthermore, I can not see that Vanessa Hue argues anything at all, she just interviews people. And for the rest of the paragraph, it is merely a collection of unsourced statements and weasel words. Thus I suggest this paragraph be deleted. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Since no one has offered any explanation, I removed the paragraph. ] 07:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

== The Vicky Nam paragraph ==

The Vicky Nam statement has been uncited for quite a while. This statement used to be phrased as a "many thinks..." statement, i.e. weasel wordish OR. It was attributed to Vicky Nam in May (see ). I contacted the contributer to confirm (see ]), and it appears she hasn't read the book but assumed the statement to come from the same book as the next paragraph (The Erika Kim paragraph). If you read the previous version, I think this assumption is not supported, and therefore suggest we remove this paragraph. ] 02:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

:I looked through my copy of the book and can't find anything remotely resembling this statement by her. It's possible one of the other contributors said it, but I don't think so. I ran a search for another source, but couldn't find one. As this article is currently the only source for Vicky Nam having said this, and the statement(in my opinion)is poorly written, I'll remove it for now. ] 07:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages's white power ==

This article is the epitomy of how Misplaced Pages is largely controlled by white men in the United States and that their world-view of what is inclusive becomes the notability standard for Misplaced Pages.
To even dare say a fetish of any type of RACE is a concept that is American and most specifically from a white perspective. Minorities exclusively dating white people see it as the regular norm, not as a fetish. Though I do believe fetishes exist such as saying one has a leather fetish. But how can one fetish an intangible concept and how is it truly a defined fetish? Asian fetish is a neologism at best to classify something that should be termed something else such as "Asian preference" and the context of such a topic should reflect historical definitions of race in America. ] 08:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

:How do you know Misplaced Pages is run by white men and that their world-view of what is inclusive becomes the notability standard for Misplaced Pages? I mean, I have noticed that even pure-bred white men vary greatly in their world-view. Some, like those in Europe, are very liberal. The Soviets were even more liberal. Some, like many here in the Americas (especially Latin America) are centrist or conservative (Well, Americans vary from ultra-conservative to ultra-liberal). There are some that are Eurocentric and some that acknowledge the accomplishments of other races, especially the Great Wall of China. And the fact that many, thousands at least, white people date and occasionally marry and mix with other races shows that they are not all racist, as a lot of people claim. Just look at the comments on this page! I hope I have not said too much or broken any guidlines. ]]] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==We need articles on the white, black and hispanic fetishes==

Seriously, though, how is having a sexual preference for Asian people any different than one for any other race that somehow makes it worthy of its own article?

This is ridiculous. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

#I don't see that the article (currently) states that the subject matter is any different from a sexual preference for any other race.
#By all means, please go right ahead and create similar articles for other races.
#New comments go to the bottom.
] <small>(] - ])</small> 10:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

:The majority are generally Asian and Caucasian people dating. It's not common to see someone who is black dating someone who is white. That's why there is an article for "Asian fetish". The media has more of an interest in it. You can see movies displaying Asians dating Caucasians. But do you ever see a black dating a Caucasian? It's not that common. I don't think that there should be an article on "Latina fetish" or "Caucasian fetish" or "Black fetish". The media has no interest in them at all. So why should it be an article? You haven't stated the reason why. I personally have never heard of Latina fetish, Caucasian fetish or Black fetish. It's interesting that there are more Asians dating Caucasians. Most people aren't drawn to a white dating a black. People just aren't interested in that. If it was, the media would be reporting every relationship. --] 21:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

:This article is a mess. It is so poorly written and it seems like it would need substantial changes to improve this article. Very little research or news articles seem to assert its notability. Maybe there should be an AfD vote. ] 03:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

== New research added ==

Some new research is added, I suggest we keep up with improving this article, it gets a little sloppy because of the arguments and constant editing... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==NPOV Tag==
What part of the article is not written in a NPOV? Please address concerns. Thanks. —]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
:If no one objects, I am going to remove the NPOV tag, as it does not appear anyone has issues with the neturality of this article. —]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 17:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i am also for removing it. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Since when did the Salon.com articles become relevant to this article???==

There are a bunch of irrelevant websites that something like "Kate Chang said in Salon.com that she feels like the asian fetishes have hurt her", how is this relevant??. This article is just become a battleground for those who strongly believe for it or against it

== ASIAN FETISH = BLAXPLOITATION. ==

I mean one get's an article and another doesn't it doesn't make sense to me. Obviously some feel that it exists and some don't. But its not write to take things away just because you feel the term negatively affects you.

== OR issue - Definition of the term ==

It seems to me that all contributers have their own defintion for what Asian fetish is, apperant form the recent edit war over whether adoption is part of the topic. This makes it is difficult to work constructively together on this article. While the definition as it stands at the moment is rather silly, I hesitate to work on it since no one, me included, has found a definition from a autoritative source. Before such a source is found, the article is original research/synthesis, and I tag it as such. Remember "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." (from ]) ] (]) 08:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

== <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag on definition ==

I notice that the user Tkguy continues removing the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag I put on the definition (a definition rewritten into its current form by Tkguy).
] says:

''Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag a sentence by adding the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> template<nowiki></nowiki>''

Thus DO NOT remove this tag without first providing a reliable source! ] (]) 03:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

: None of the other fetish pages have people requiring references to substantiate its definitions. The fact that you require references reveals your true intentions. You can look up fetish, sexual fetish, etc. But it's obvious learning about fetish is irrelevant to you. You just want to define a very racist term into something healthy and harmless, for obviously self serving reasons. ] 23:47 PM, November 27 2007 (UTC)

: There are many many article links on this site and if you look in the history there are many more. I would say to look to them for your reference but once again this is irrelevant to you. Therefore I will delete your tag each time you add it. comment added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::First, I will ignore your accusations of bad faith motives. Second, that other articles are poorly referenced is not a reason why this one should be. Third, are you saying that there is a source for the definition in any of the articles? If so, simply point out which one. You wrote the definition, so you should know which one, right? Forth, I believe deleting a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tag without supplying a reference and without consensus is in breach of WP policy. If you continue doing that, I will investigate and take the necesarry measures. ] (]) 05:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

:::"Stereotyping of Asian personality traits" pretty much supports my definition. All the articles starts out with an attempt at defining asian fetish. However, they are usually focused on non-asian men obsessing after asian females. I will not spend the time listing them all. Look at how much time you spend on writing that you want supporting data. If you actually were interested you would be reading them yourself. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::OK, I took the Prasso definition of AF, found in "Stereotyping of Asian personality traits" and replaced the current unsourced definition with this one. ] (]) 07:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::See there was no point on discussing this with you. My assumption about your intention has been proven. Nobody is shocked. I assure you. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::::Incredible. ''You'' point me to "Stereotyping of Asian personality traits", I take the only definition of AF I can find there, reference it properly, and you revert??? And your only "explantion" is accusing me yet again for bad faith motives. ] (]) 01:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

:::::::First off I make a reference to the "fetish" page. You should look it up and realize that fetish is not just about sexual perversion. And the entry under "Stereotyping of Asian personality traits" are just focusing on the sexual aspect of it. I've put a reference to them. If you can't find and legitimate material to contradict my entry then don't change it or remove it. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

::::::::Yes, asian fetish is only typically about sexual matters. From the usage level, the adoption issue is relevant, and not only for pedophilia purposes. ] (]) 07:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

== 3RR ==

OK, seems like both me and Tkguy broke the ]. Since Tkguy has already reverted my last version, I can't follow ]. I will take a bit of time off, and encourage Tkguy to do the same. ] (]) <small>—Preceding ] was added at 04:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: b/c he refused to follow 3RR after I notified him of his wrongdoing. —]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
::That's fine I added how you were working with ] to skirt the 3rr rules. So let's see what happens. I've also mentioned your non-constructive editing of the ] (a American pro-Israel neoconservative think tank) page. ] (]) 05:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

==Page protection==
Blocks were handed down then undone. I've decided it best to protect the page to encourage discussion here. Once the protection is lifted, should edit wars resume, there will be blocks made. Please take this time to attempt to come to a consensus regarding the content of this article. ''']''']''']''' 04:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

{{tl|editprotected}} I am concerned that the version of the ] page that is now protected is the one that ] and ] have been working on for a long time. Is it possible that we start with the version of the page that he is trying to revert from? I think it's a more objective version of the page and a much better point to start from. It has all the entries Chris supports but it does not however let them define ] by putting them as the first sentences on the page. Here's the version I am proposing to use version . It is a somewhat rough version of the page that attempts to bring back old entries that have been lost in the many edit wars of the past and introduce some new material. Not perfect but I think it's a better starting point. If you have issues with it please let me know. I have a lot of supporting data but I am still learning how to create references. ] 01:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

:{{cross}} Not an edit request. See ]. ] 20:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Since a stripped down version of the page that ], who has been banned from editing from wikipedia for 48 hours for edit waring on many pages, is being protected. I have no choice but to put in many changes that will bring this page up to the content that many people have been trying to remove to sugar coat a racist term for a racist act against asians. ] 22:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

{{tl|editprotected}}
Please remove the first sentence. Saying that Asian fetish favors Asians is like saying that sexism favors females and that racism favors people of color. A very racist message is being hidden in very crafty way, in this sentence.
:'''Asian ]''' denotes a ] favoring Asian people for their race and perceptions of their culture.<ref>
{{cite book | first = Sheridan | last = Prasso | authorlink = | coauthors = | year = 2005 | month = |
title = The Asian Mystique | chapter = 'Race-ism,' ], and Fever | chapterl = | editor = | others = | edition =
| pages = 132-164,141 | publisher = Perseus Books | location = Cambridge, MA}}</ref> </blockquote>

with this one. This is far more objective.

:'''Asian fetish''' is a term used for the racial ] for people of Asian descent that is typically sexual in nature.<ref>
{{cite book | first = Sheridan | last = Prasso | authorlink = | coauthors = | year = 2005 | month = |
title = The Asian Mystique | chapter = 'Race-ism,' ], and Fever | chapterl = | editor = | others = | edition =
| pages = 132-164,141 | publisher = Perseus Books | location = Cambridge, MA}}</ref><ref name=Hwang>{{cite book
| first = David Henry
| last = Hwang
| year = 1988
| title = M. Butterfly
| chapter = Afterward
| pages = p. 98
| publisher = Plume Books
| location = New York}}</ref>



{{tl|editprotected}}

::I disagree. The slang term "Asian fetish" has nothing to do with the term "racial fetishism" from postcolonial studies. The Hwang source does not support such an interpretation. The Prasso book I haven't read. Please quote the passage that you feel support your view ] 07:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

:::One thing definite is nobody is contesting my analysis that the sentence on the page is racist. So since you are not providing a better option I will replace the racist sentence with my sentence.

:::Your constant push to make this term a slang reveals your intention of redefining the phrase. If you are going ask that every word be referenced then provide a reference that makes asian fetish a slang term. And while your at it provide references from the Hwang sources that supports you argument. If you can't then don't write about it. To sum up what you wrote you are saying that asian fetish is not a race based fetish. This is ridiculous. Asian is race. Fetish is an obsession, look up the word in a dictionary. A person with an obsession might think it's a preference. But for normal people an obsession is unhealthy. This is a page dealing with an obsession for asians. If you want to talk about a preference then don't use the word fetish. And if you choose not to use the word fetish, then what you write does not belong on this page.] 02:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The following section should be placed under the "Asian preferences in dating" in dating section.

:] has argued that not all Asians feel that Asian ] is bad, since it has given new sexual visibility and liberation to an otherwise invisible and disadvantaged minority.<ref>{{cite book| first = Phoebe| last = Eng| year = 2000| title = Warrior Lessons : An Asian American Woman's Journey into Power| chapter = She Takes Back Desire| pages = 115 – 142|publisher = Atria| location = New York}}</ref>


Again keeping with my previous critiques, I will leave this here for a few days to allow discussion before attempting to fix the issues I have identified.
{{tl|editprotected}}
Please relabel the "Asian preferences in dating" section to "Arguments Against Asian Fetish". This is exactly what these are, arguments against asian fetish. To have a section labeled as "Asian preference in dating" is to subtly soften or mitigate the term, which is the intention of people who have been deleting contributions from this page. ] 22:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
:The 'Asian preferences in dating' section references a study on why Asian women date white men; it is not 'Arguments against Asian fetish'--it is only about Asian preferences in dating and has nothing to do with argument against Asian fetish; therefore, it should not be renamed.
:''Phoebe Eng has argued that not all Asians feel that Asian fetish is bad, since it has given new sexual visibility and liberation to an otherwise invisible and disadvantaged minority.'' does not belong under the 'Asian preferences in dating' or the proposed 'Argumemnts against Asian fetish' section because it has nothing to do with either of those section titles. —]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


{{tq|In the 1800s, after the opening of Japan by Matthew Perry, word began to spread in the United States about the seductive femininity of Asian women. Nationalistic fears that Asian women would seduce White men and destroy White families led to the passage Page Act of 1875, which prevented Chinese women from entering the United States.}}
::By your words you are saying that the Phoebe entry is not about Asian fetish. Then this entry does not belong to a page titled asian fetish. You wrote it yourself and by your words this entry will be removed. ] 02:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
{{not done}} {{not done}} {{not done}} None of these editprotected requests have been done. You were all asked to seek consensus, not subvert this with conflicting editprotected requests. Agree what you want the article to say, and it will be unprotected and you can make all the edits yourselves. ]&nbsp;] 09:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


"Word began to spread" is a strange way of framing it. It ''assumes'' that Asian women ''are'' seductively feminine, instead of how the message of Asian prostitutes and geishas shaped a fantasy of Asian women as "seductive and sinister".


"Nationalistic fears that Asian women would seduce White men and destroy White families" again, doesn't mention prostitutes whereas the source text clearly does.
{{tl|editprotected}}
Please remove the below sentence from the page. We have an agreement that it is a racist entry. To write that Asian fetish favors Asians is like saying that sexism favors females and that racism favors people of color. A very racist message is being hidden in very crafty way, in this sentence which was made by a editor, ], who just got off from being 3rr block and of course is trying to prevent my changes from going through. Surprisingly it is ] who is implying that it is indeed racist.
:'''Asian ]''' denotes a ] favoring Asian people for their race and perceptions of their culture.<ref>
{{cite book | first = Sheridan | last = Prasso | authorlink = | coauthors = | year = 2005 | month = |
title = The Asian Mystique | chapter = 'Race-ism,' ], and Fever | chapterl = | editor = | others = | edition =
| pages = 132-164,141 | publisher = Perseus Books | location = Cambridge, MA}}</ref> </blockquote>


{{tq|As early as the 1920s, it was noticed that White Dutch men preferred South East Asian women over White women. When Indonesia was a colony of the Netherlands, a new beauty ideal was established, which ranked local women with light brown skin and lustrous black hair at the top. The American consul general to Indonesia remarked that, to the average man, a mixed-race Indonesian woman was considered more attractive than a "pure" White woman, because White women's complexions were too pale. The legacy of this colonial fetishization continues to be reflected in local literature, where women with European features (such as blond hair) are pitied, and it is written that "a golden-colored skin is the greatest gift that Allah can bestow upon a woman".}}


While there is some truth here, this goes too far and states things too strongly. Saying "a new beauty ideal was established" makes it sound like a sexual hierarchy was virtually institutionalized. It fails to mention the economic motives from the source. The quote "a golden-colored skin is the greatest gift that Allah can bestow upon a woman" is from a Sundanese woman - it doesn't make sense to claim that an Asian woman upholding an Asian beauty standard is afflicted with colonial fetishism. Lastly, this is too long in proportion to its importance.
{{tl|editprotected}}
Please remove the below sentence from the page. ] and I agree that it has nothing to do with asian fetish. This is surprising since Chris almost got 3rr blocked for vandalizing this page but got 3rr blocked for vandalizing another page.
:''Phoebe Eng has argued that not all Asians feel that Asian fetish is bad, since it has given new sexual visibility and liberation to an otherwise invisible and disadvantaged minority.''


{{tq|After World War II, the U.S. military occupied Japan, and U.S. soldiers began to interact with Japanese women.}}
::Hello TKGuy. I don't think you need to worry about what the article says right now. From the looks of your edits you seem to me to be a most constructive editor. Lets just take our time and keep improving the article as you have been when the article is unfrozen. If other editors are reverting unconstructively then we can simply report them for it. ] 05:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I never stated Phoebe entry is not about Asian fetish. Did you read the part of the sentence that states, "not all Asians feel that <u>Asian fetish</u> is bad." Please don't make false claims about what I agreed to. Thanks. —]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
:::''Phoebe Eng has argued that not all Asians feel that Asian fetish is bad, since it has given new sexual visibility and liberation to an otherwise invisible and disadvantaged minority.'' does not belong under the 'Asian preferences in dating' or the proposed 'Argumemnts against Asian fetish' section because it has nothing to do with either of those section titles. —]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:::This is obviously an opinion made by one asian female who happens to be married to a white man. So it's a biased opinion. The fact that you placed it on the top of the page is unacceptable. You need to figure out a section for this to put in. It has nothing to do with the definition of asian fetish therefore it does not belong on the top of the page. Do you agree or not? If not explain otherwise your opinion null and void.
:::Is asian preference the same as asian fetish? Is that what you are getting at? ] (]) 02:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


From Thomas (2021) (summaries my own, although it's a faithful approximation of the text):
My "agreement" is also a fabriction from Tkguy's side. ] 09:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
:What part of my comment don't you agree with? You need to be specific and back up your comments. Just saying I don't agree is like saying cause I said so. Either make an argument or this comment will now and forever be considered a racist entry, and you are the clear author. How does asian fetish benefit asians? Are you referring to the phoebe comment? That's an opinion by one asian female who is married to a white man. And to say that asians benefit from asian fetish is a very racist thing to write. Like I wrote before I already explained why. Either you respond and explain yourself. If not then you are silence means that you can not defend that this comment is not racist towards asians and therefore must be deleted. ] (]) 02:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


* In the aftermath of WW2, the "Tokyo Rose" ideal emerged which further exoticised Asian women by allowing American GIs to "transfer their racial fantasies and hostilities"
::I'm not sure if its a racist thing to write. But certainly putting the contentious Eng statement in the lead section it totally inappropriate. This should certainly not be a promotional page for a particular and often harassment causing obsession. ] (]) 05:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
* Military-endorsed prostitution and regulation of brothels contributed to the conception of Asian women as prostitutes.


From Nagatomo:
:::It doesn't fit under any other section and is too small to create a new section for it. The phoebe reference being in the lead does not give undue weight to it; read ].—]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


* Although brothels were established in an attempt to regulate sex work and reduce rapes, these were closed by the Americans due to large outbreaks of STIs.
::::I have already read the recommendations concerning lead sections. Firstly its a ridiculously narrow middle class angloamerican view that takes up the majority of the text in the lead. In Asia, for example, Asians are not at all disadvantaged in particular. And in all other ways, the statement is totally out of place in the lead. It should be moved here and discussed so as to remove any WASPishly banal and inappropriately perverted attributions. Context is everything here. ] (]) 15:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


{{tq|There was a perception that Japanese women were superior to American women, and there was a widespread sentiment "that a Japanese woman's heart was twice as big as those of her American sisters".}}
::::Chris your reason keeps changing. In other words you just want to do whatever you want. You obviously could care less about contributing objectively to this page. I see you have been vandalizing the ] page. Not to mention your vandalism of the ] page and the ] (pro-Jewish think tank) ] (]) 01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


You would think, reading this, that the dynamic between American GIs and Japanese women was respectful and one of mutual attraction. However, from Thomas's text:
::Tkguy, I am not sure how anything I have written/quoted suggests that Asians benefit from asian fetish. You are referring to the first sentence, right? Is it the word "favoring" you have a problem with? If so, then we could replace it with "for" or "towards" or something similar. But calling Asian fetish a ] is wrong, and the point is not whether Asian is a race or not, but that "racial fetish" has a spesific meaning in academic discourse that is unrelated to "Asian fetish". ] (]) 09:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


* American soldiers in Japan, Korea, and Vietnam believed in their racial superiority and expected Asian women to be sexually available.
:::You got to be joking me. There is absolutely no logic in what you wrote. Asian fetish is a racial fetish. Asian is a race. Fetish is Fetish. That's how the term is a labeling of a specific type of racial fetish. Are saying that this is a allegory? Meaning that expression should not be taken literally? ] (]) 01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Nagatomo's text:
::::Yes, Asian fetish is not really a fetish, since fetish is directed at inanimate objects. ] (]) 03:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


* American GIs were "swept off their feet by the deference and obedience of servile Japanese women"
:::::The fetish or obsession when applied to people of asian descent, objectifies them. The obsession prevents people from seeing asians as individuals because it becomes the focus of the relationship and not the individual person. People can be treated like objects. That is something that you can not deny. ] (]) 05:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
* American GIs "praised the Japanese women for their kindly qualities, their submissiveness, and their eagerness to make the men comfortable"


The current article completely ignores mentions of stereotypical descriptions that put Asian women in subservient positions.
{{cross}}} '''Protected edits declined.''' I cannot see any consensus here. ] (]) 23:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
:I don't get it Sandstein this guy ] is very close to being ban from wikipedia entirely for vandalizing so many pages and you are asking me to get a consensus from him? The guy obviously has an agenda here that is to eliminate all negative aspect of a negative racist term. I have support from ] and I don't believe he's been banned unlike ] and ].] (]) 01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Moving on to Lim's writing on the Oriental Wave, it is indeed significant and interesting. However, the summary stops at 1959, notably before the Vietnam War. Lim states in her conclusion:
::Hi Tkguy. I also had problems understanding Sandstein's reasoning. However, I now think its sound. Basically this article is going to be a problem as long as there are odd things to pervert within the text. The subject is controversial. So Sandstein is trying to help us make a useful and constructive discourse. I noticed also that editors on Misplaced Pages are punished for openly accusing each other of vandalism, even when it is true. Probably not a good idea to follow that line unless you do it as a report on admins articles. You clearly have a lot of good sense to offer here and I'd appreciate your input on various issues as we proceed. I think its really very obvious that there are particular points of view or twists being put on the article. I don't think it even needs to be said any more, unless it be to administrators to ask them for help. We may never come to consensus. However, constructive discussion will probably allow the article to move forward. The article has a lot of improvements needed. The discourse here could also improve. I think we are both fairly new here, though I have used Misplaced Pages a lot in the past, this is one of the first times I have edited here. I think we need to climb the learning curve to sort this one out. At the same time, I believe in some respects we seem to have advanced past the state of some experienced editors already. ] (]) 06:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


{{tq|From 1959 forward, one might argue that iconic Asian American women set the stage for stereotypes that keep Asian American women in subordinate positions.}}
The problem is that edits to protected pages are only made when there is clear consensus for it. The above discussion is too confusing to indicate that such a consensus exists. I advise you to discuss any proposed edit in a separate section below, and to only add the {{tl|editprotected}} template ''after'' it is very obvious, due to a well-structured discussion, that there is consensus about a specific wording. ] (]) 06:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


But this article decides to end it on:
Tkguy, I am not "very close to being ban from wikipedia entirely for vandalizing so many pages." I have not vandalized any articles, I am not even remotely close to being ban from wikipedia, nor do I have any kind of agenda to use Asian fetish as a racist term. You stating false information about me in order to downplay my edits as vandalism is not acceptable. —]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 18:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


{{tq| also marked the beginning of the end of White women's dominance as the mainstream beauty ideal in America.}}
:Anybody can look at your talk page history and see that you have been accused of vandalism many many many times.
:Asian fetish is a term that describes a racist behavior. I assure of you of that. The term contains the word "asian" as I've stated many times here. And it contains the word "fetish". I really don't expect you to understand. ] (]) 01:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
:::I have been <u>accused</u> of vandalism by people like you who do not/did not understand Misplaced Pages policy/guidelines. Regardless, I have not been even close to being banned from Misplaced Pages nor am I pushing an agenda. Please do not lie about things. —]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


This is an incredible statement, and not present in the source. Here's what the source actually says:
::::Christopher Mann McKay, do not accuse others of lying. Assume good faith. The article is in need of improvement and such accusations are unhelpful. Removing very obvious facts without discussion towards sourcing, also shows a particularly unhelpful approach. I know there will be some material you want to remove from the article, but discussion is imperative in this situation. Your past edit contributions are rather telling of the sort of editing we can expect from you. So again, I repeat; please discuss edits and sources more constructively. ] (]) 04:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


{{tq|Though Asian women triumphed over white ones in the Miss Universe pageant, the Academy Awards, and the cover of Life magazine, in differing ways each woman had to contend with body alterations to meet contem- porary standards of appearance. Through and through, their cultural iconography was predicated upon invoking European American standards of femininity.}}
==Possible references?==
Maybe ''The Hypersexuality of Race: Performing Asian/American Women on Screen and Scene''? Check out the ToC on Amazon or Google.
:Thank you. ] 04:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


Lastly, I believe this section needs to connect to other sections discussing war brides, sex tourism, and depictions in media as these topics are an important part of the history, too. ] (]) 21:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
:Unfortunately Google took out a vast chunk of the book so I could only see the first chapter and the last. =( ] 04:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


== Critique of section: "International Marriage" ==
== Disagreement over definition of Asian fetish ==


Starting with the stats rundown at the top:
{{RFCsoc | section=Disagreement over definition of Asian fetish !! reason=Edit war between ] and ] !! time=21:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)}}


* The Washington Post article is fine, if dated.
* The census data source does not include Asians. No idea where these numbers were pulled from. It seems the US Census doesn't track this. Remove.
* Likewise, for Chou (2012), she doesn't cite a source. I wouldn't question a published source if it were something the author had direct access to, but for this type of data the primary source needs to be stated. I also found a version of her text that includes the numbers, but the math doesn't math, and again, there is no primary source listed. Remove.
* Pew Research centre actually has some real numbers, but they aren't even mentioned in this article. I'm beginning to lose faith that anybody has actually read any of these sources.


This section needs to mention war brides by their name. ]. Another example of this article viewing the subject through rose-tinted glasses.
===Different versions===
''The different versions of the definition are:''


Paragraphs about Debbie Lum and Bitna Kim belong in a different section, maybe a new section, about the perceptions of White (or Western) men with Asian fetish.
{{quote|'''Asian fetish''' is when people of Asian descent, typically females, are "objectified and valued not for who they are as people, but for their race or perceptions of the culture they come from". The objectification is typically sexual in nature.<ref>
{{cite book | first = Sheridan | last = Prasso | authorlink = | coauthors = | year = 2005 | month = |title = The Asian Mystique | chapter = 'Race-ism,' Fetish, and Fever | chapterl = | editor = | others = | edition = | pages = 132-164,141 | publisher = Perseus Books | location = Cambridge, MA}}</ref>|Tkguy}}


Thai section is a little fuzzy, but whatever. The Swedish men–Thai women thing is just a note from a bulletin from 2016 – no data, no trend. Questionable relevance. Remove.
{{quote|'''Asian fetish''' refers to objectifying people of ], typically females, who are "objectified and valued not for who they are as people, but for their race or perceptions of their culture". The objectification, typically by white men, is usually sexual in nature.<ref>
{{cite book | first = Sheridan | last = Prasso | authorlink = | coauthors = | year = 2005 | month = |title = The Asian Mystique | chapter = 'Race-ism,' Fetish, and Fever | chapterl = | editor = | others = | edition = | pages = 132-164,141 | publisher = Perseus Books | location = Cambridge, MA}}</ref><ref name="audrey1">Chan, Elizabeth. '']''. </ref>


Indian/Danish/Asian divorce trends (Mishra 2016): Editorial articles are not a great source for divorce statistics, especially when the primary source isn't listed. Also, what does this have to do with the topic? ] (]) 05:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Asian ], used in a more benign context, has been used to indicate "a harmless preference for specific physical characteristics, such as narrow eyes and flatter noses, as harmless as some people's preference for dating, say, fatter partners." <ref name="ColorQ"></ref> Asian fetish has also been cited as causes of sex crimes against Asian women in the ].<ref name="AsianWeek" />|Saranghae honey}}


== Regarding recent edits ==
====Comments by involved parties====


Since there seems to only be three people here, I'll first point out that I am not the other editor you have been talking to, and I disagree with their ideas too. But you have had very strange removals of sources, ]. Emily Rothman isn't "frankly getting it wrong", it's you who did. She doesn't reference Shor and Golriz in that point but Zhou and Paul, who are also referenced in Shor and Golriz too but you gladly choose to ignore and not add to the article. You also removed a source for simply being 19 years old, while keeping one that is 22 years old that what, fit your viewpoint instead? You grandly remove sources for not being enough thorough with their research and evidence, but freely add ones with slimmer studies, because they what, fit your viewpoint? And regarding Shot and Golriz, they fully admit they looked at Japanese pornography with full Japanese casts made for Japanese audience. How is this related to Asian fetish? Do Japanese men have an Asian fetish? Or, is this just to force your viewpoint? Of course, you forced it to the lede too. ] (]) 02:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
===Tkguy's Background Information===
Please note that this page has a history of being vandalized. ] nominated this page for deletion, but that request was declined. This was the second time this page has been nominated for deletion and of course both times the request was declined. ] took it upon him or herself to make massive massive amount of changes to the page which he or she claims is for improving the "integrity" of the page. Of course many of these changes involved deleting much of the content of the page. I being new to the wikipedia editing world tried to keep the content, with their reliable source, that people worked hard on from being deleted. I tried to bring back some items that have been deleted in the past for obviously bias reasons. With all these deletions going on I decided that since ] had no problem with ] deletion of half the references from the page, I believe it would be ok for me to delete any changes that ] made that did not have any sources that fit under WP:V. ] added a new definition to Asian fetish that used a quote from the "colorq.org" site. This site seems more like a personal site with articles that have very few articles with authors specified. It's obviously bias since it slogan is "interracial interactions between people of color". There are no indication as to who exactly owns, runs, and funds this site. I don't believe this can be used a valid source. So to have a definition that uses a quote from this site then that means that the definition can be removed. This does not mean that I will not allow such a definition to be added. It just means that I expect that such definition be added with a quote that accurately convey the notion that author is trying to present. And of course it should come from a reliable source. I am doing all this red tape because that was what ] and many on this page has made me put up with while trying to defend the content of this page.


:I think we can have a reasoned discussion about this. Please tone down your accusations. What I write is reflective of what the sources say.
Please also note that I had to spend a lot of time rewriting much of the quotes and summarization of source because I've found them to not reflect the source data accurately. For example ] wrote the following:
:* On Rothman: She references both Shor & Golriz for the statistics, and Zhou & Paul for the violence study. She incorrectly assumes that Shor & Golriz is a representative sample of Pornhub, which it is not. You can read Shor & Golriz to verify this. You're right that their sample contained a significant number Japanese productions, which they also note in their study. They also state that these videos had similar amounts of violence compared to Western-produced videos with Asian women, so it doesn't change their finding. As well, Pornhub's ''audience'' is equally relevant as its content producers.
:* I kept Zhou & Paul in this article and there's nothing wrong with their research.
:* Which source did I remove for being 19 years old?
:] (]) 02:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:Also, if you're going to criticize things I added, be more specific so that we can discuss them. ] (]) 02:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)


::I think we can have a reasoned discussion after you add the sources back. I mean I am at a bit of a loss at what to do here. I want to show a good will, and I don't want to revert to the stable state, but you removed so many sources that it would look like I am messing the page up if I started adding them one by one back. What else can I do? I also have no idea what you're talking about with the Rothman statistics and violence study differentiation. On page 63 in the middle paragraph there is no Shor and Golriz, only Zhou and Paul. It literally begins with "Zhou and Paul randomly sampled..." PornHub isn't even mentioned in that paragraph. Shor and Golriz also do not mention that there was similar amounts, they specifically point out how much more there is in Japanese. I am bewildered at what you are writing, because it's the exact opposite of what's written. And you fully just removed the Hyphen magazine and other sources. And that was simply about trans women in pornography, so I don't understand why you removed it either. Are you fully comprehending everything? ] (]) 02:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:Asian fetish has been used in a more benign context to mean "a harmless preference for specific physical characteristics, such as narrow eyes and flatter noses, as harmless as some people's preference for dating, say, fatter partners."
:::Both Zhou & Paul and Shor & Golriz were studies on aggression, not overall demographic analyses.
:::From Rothman:
:::{{tq|Exceptions include two content reviews from the 1990s,43 and one recent content analysis by Zhou and Paul (2016) on videos taken from the “Asian women” category of Xvideos.com.64 In addition, some basic informa- tion about the race of performers is available. In their analysis of 172 Pornhub videos uploaded between 2000 and 2016, Shor and Golriz found that ap- proximately 55% of pornography featured a white man, 30% featured a Black man, 10% featured an Asian man, and only 5% featured a Latino man. Asian women were comparatively overrepresented. Approximately 37% of pornog- raphy videos that they analyzed featured white women, 28% Black women, 16% Latina women, 1% Middle Eastern women, and 17% Asian women.51 For comparison purposes, according to the 2018 American Community Survey, the population of the United States is 72% white, 18% Hispanic or Latino, 13% Black or African American, and 5% Asian—so Black and Asian men and women appear to be overrepresented as pornography performers.}}
:::The demographic statistics are from Shor & Golriz.
:::{{tq|Zhou and Paul randomly sampled 3,053 pornography videos from Xvideos.com and employed 27 undergraduate students in the coding of the videos in 2013. They found that Asian women were depicted differently than women of other races in pornography, were treated less aggressively, were less objectified, but also had lower agency in sexual activities.64}}
:::You're referring to this? I kept this in the article.
:::Also, Shor & Golriz:
:::{{tq|Furthermore, this finding can- not be attributed to differing norms in various porn industries, as Asian female performers were likely to suffer from aggression in both Japanese- and Western-produced videos (in fact, even slightly more so in the latter).}}
:::Which is exactly what I said.
:::I can add Hyphen Magazine and trans pornography back in if you insist. I removed it because best-selling DVDs from 19 years ago seem a little distant (and not as good a source as I'd like), but I don't have a strong objection. ] (]) 02:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Shor and Golriz specifically write "videos featuring Asian men were significantly more likely to portray male aggression" and "all of these videos were products of the Japanese adult entertainment industry, which has unique characteristics that distinguish it from Western pornography. This industry includes notable and popular genres that often portray women as victims and men as molesters and abusers". I did not notice that that short sentence you picked up, and I have no idea what they base it upon because it disagrees with everything they have written besides that, but just before that sentence I noticed they write "This finding is especially counterintuitive with respect to Asian female performers, as they seem to stand in contrast with both previous literature about the most common media images of Asian women (Hagedron, 1997; Nakamatsu, 2005; Uchida 1998) and the recent study by Zhou and Paul (2016)". They even write that their findings disagree with general findings, yet you somehow managed to force it to be the general findings in the lede. There is obviously no consensus in literature yet you synthed there to be one in the lede. And I was talking about including the Rothman source, which is secondary source and thus preferred on Misplaced Pages over primary. ] (]) 03:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Everything they wrote is logically consistent. It depends if you are looking at Asian men or Asian women. This article's focus is Asian women.
:::::Here's how I understand it:
:::::1. There are many videos with white men, and a percentage (say 10% for simplicity's sake) contain Asian women.
:::::2. Other than Japanese productions, there are not very many videos with Asian men. Say 1%, also for simplicity's sake.
:::::3. There are Japanese productions that are 100% Asian men with Asian women. Say that there are the same number of these videos as there are Western productions featuring White men with Asian women.
:::::4. Both the Japanese productions and the Western productions with Asian women have a high proportion of violent content, compared to videos without Asian women.
:::::If these 4 things are all true, then we would truthfully say:
:::::1. Videos featuring Asian men were significantly more likely to portray male aggression (most of those were Japanese productions) compared to White men.
:::::2. Videos featuring Asian women were significantly more like likely to have violent content.
:::::3. Excluding Japanese productions doesn't change things for point #2, because the Western videos with Asian women contain just as much violence (and apparently slightly more)
:::::4. Videos with a White man and a non-Asian woman have comparatively lower rates of violence.
:::::There's a number of possible explanations why their results differ from Zhou & Paul, not the least of which is just that it's a different website, but all we can do in this article is present both.
:::::So we have Zhou & Paul, Shor & Golriz, and Gossett & Byrne. I believe Gossett & Byrne alone is enough to describe the results as troubling. If it was just Zhou and Shor together, you would probably say the data are inconclusive, but the different study focus in Gossett definitely points to something. Neither Zhou or Shor refutes the finding in Gossett.
:::::I have no issue citing the Rothman text, as long as a note is included that the demographics provided are erroneous. ] (]) 04:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::To begin with Shor and Golriz specify looking at a category called "Asian/Japanese" and with just 35 (total 172) videos compared to Zhou and Paul who looked at 3053 videos. They also specifically have a table of the pairings so you don't need to guess. We can see that when there is an Asian woman, the odds of there being aggression is lower than when there is an Asian man, thus disproving your theory, because it is decreased by the content with non-Asian men having lower rate of it. And you keep pointing out the 19 year old age of the Hyphen source, but have no trouble touting the 22 year old Gossett, which again makes no differentiation between the sourcing of the content and doesn't mention the word "fetish" even once. None of this is related to Asian fetish. They all seemingly looked at Japanese pornography made for Japanese. No conclusions about Asian fetish can be made from that. ] (]) 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I mean, I think you're well into performing your own analysis with this comment. If you're going to disagree with the authors then you should have irrefutable evidence.
:::::::Table 4
:::::::Aggression (visual)
:::::::White man with Asian woman: 9.01
:::::::Asian man with Asian woman: 6.45
:::::::You keep talking like Shor and Zhou can't both be right. They ''can'' both be right. They were studies on two different websites using two different methods. Zhou's study has more precision because of the larger sample, sure, but that doesn't amplify the finding.
:::::::"Keep pointing out"? I said I have no objections to adding Hyphen back in.
:::::::I seriously think you should take a break and cool down. I'm making completely well-reasoned points and you're just coming back again and again with misgivings about the study. ] (]) 04:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Well cherrypicked column from the table. Here's the rest.
::::::::Title suggesting aggression
::::::::White man with Asian woman: 1.04
::::::::Asian man with Asian woman: 2.76
::::::::% of video showing aggression (OLS)
::::::::White man with Asian woman: 6.73
::::::::Asian man with Asian woman: 28.75
::::::::Aggression (nonconsensual)
::::::::White man with Asian woman: 1.53
::::::::Asian man with Asian woman: 2.53
::::::::You have not proven any of your claims. Please stop getting into personalities and talking about me, and rather talk of how your mass removal of sources makes sense. ] (]) 04:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I didn't cherry-pick anything, the authors picked that for their discussion. They probably did that because both those numbers reached statistical significance, whereas with the numbers you listed, only the 28.75 was statistically significant.
:::::::::In general, though, I don't have to prove anything. The study says this, and that's what the article goes with.
:::::::::I have several thousand words above explaining my rationale for various changes. If you have an issue with any removals, tell me specifically which ones. However, I'm less and less willing to deal with you the more you try to argue against published research here. ] (]) 05:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::You did cherrypick, and so did the authors. You talked of Rothman being unreliable, but Shor and Gorliz are with their tiny number of videos and cherrypicked focus points compared to Zhou and Paul. Even Shor and Gorliz said the literature generally disagrees with their findings. What do you say about that? And as already shown, your offered "rationale" is wholly wrong. You completely misread Rothman and apparently "accidentally" cut out sources from the article that you say you're going to return but don't. And now you're say you're not willing to deal with me anymore? Well what point is there for me to pinpoint this and that if you're not even responding then? ] (]) 05:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Sounds like you don't like this study. That's really too bad, but I think I'm done trying to help you understand it. Like I said, if you have further objections past Rothman and Hyphen, I'm all ears. ] (]) 05:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::For one, you removed the large starting paragraph with sources from the interracial marriages section. Your reasoning was that it wasn't related to the Asian fetish and it wasn't sourced well enough (I don't see anything wrong with the sources for the simple numbers in the prose). Now, I don't fully disagree with idea of it not being related, but how is the whole pornography section related then? Or the sex tourism section? Should we remove them as well? Like pointed out, the sources usually don't even mention "fetish". ] (]) 05:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Of marriage stats, only Washington Post was accurate, but it's from 1998 and frankly, it's not that interesting. Imbalanced marriage rates could equally be explained by White women discriminating against Asian men (which is pretty well-documented)
:::::::::::::Marriage vs porn and sex tourism, hmm! I can definitely think of some reasons why those things are different. Which of those allow you to filter for "Asian" up front? ] (]) 06:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::How are those sources incorrect? There was one dead source you could have simply used web archive to get the archival link for. What discrimination of Asian men by White women? And what filtering? ] (]) 06:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::So many questions! I have explained my findings on the sources above. How about you make a ''positive'' case for why you think that interracial marriage ''is'' relevant? ] (]) 06:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Not really for these matters? And concerning that, like I wrote, I'm not arguing everything is relevant, I'm asking why according to you some aren't and some are even if they don't mention "fetish" once. ] (]) 06:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::1. If you're serious about discussing these issues, don't turn it into a revert war.
:::::::::::::::::2. Okay, so if you agree it's not relevant, the source quality doesn't matter.
:::::::::::::::::3. It seems like you're in need of a definition of what Asian fetish means, exactly. Zheng's 2016 paper is probably the best source you will get on this, and can be supplemented by Zheng's chapter in the 2022 Routledge text titled "Sex, Marriage, and Race". ] (]) 14:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::It's not a revert war as three editors have reverted you now, that's just undoing vandalism. You offer nothing but point to Zheng? Whose text you have massively removed from the article? There's no logic in that argument. ] (]) 15:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::* One editor other than yourself did a revert (the IP users are the same) of one section only. We discussed, I sorted out their misconceptions, and did a new edit incorporating new information.
:::::::::::::::::::* I kept all of Zheng. In fact, I kept most of the same sources.
:::::::::::::::::::] (]) 15:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::These are the diffs: ,
::::::::::::::::::::One can understand why you'd ignore the IP because you have apparently now listed a sock puppet investigation against me, accusing me of being the IP editor? You completely missed out on there having been two IP editors of this article and only focused on the other, even combing through history only picking up their edits. It's bizarre that you'd even start an investigation listing against past IP edits.
::::::::::::::::::::And no, you didn't keep most of Zheng, and well keeping "most" of the old sources is surely highly gracious of you...
::::::::::::::::::::By this point I have to say you have clearly zero intent at coming to any sort of agreement or compromise, and are here only to harass and edit fight. ] (]) 01:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::So, it seems like he's not responding anymore and the investigation was simply closed. I'm asking others, like the IP editor who has frequented this article or others like ], do you support or don't support reverting the mass removal of sources etc. by this editor? ] (]) 04:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::I proposed a solution to this disagreement on your talk page, which you saw.
::::::::::::::::::::::It's required to discuss here if you disagree with me. Asking ] to form a brigade against me here is not allowed. ] (]) 04:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::It's called a consensus... Before responding here I responded on the talk page, telling you to respond to my reply here. ] (]) 04:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::Recruiting users who are likely to support your view is not allowed. You can only request input from impartial users.
::::::::::::::::::::::::I'll say once that I'm expecting this conversation to be ].
::::::::::::::::::::::::What would you like me to respond to? The three reverts?
::::::::::::::::::::::::First one – I discussed the matter. Whoever those IP users were, they aren't coming back. I made a fresh edit after a week of no response.
::::::::::::::::::::::::Second one - I agree with that revert (and it was on one edit only). Makes sense to me.
::::::::::::::::::::::::Third one was you and you haven't discussed the specifics of what you find objectionable. ] (]) 05:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::If the users in question are the only ones participating then there isn't much choice. I don't know what has happened at this article before my time. And I understood the SPI clerk to simply mean the IPs are dynamic thus he doesn't expect the same IPs to continue editing, not that the editor will stop. And should I repeat myself? You didn't keep most of Zheng, and you say you kept "most" of the old sources which doesn't sound very constructive. You haven't responded to the numerous questions about how Shor and Golriz say the general literature has differed with their findings, which is contrary to the line you keep pushing to the lede. ] (]) 05:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::A Rainbow Footing It has never contributed to this page, apparently.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::Before my edits, Zheng was cited heavily in the "Psychological effects" section, once in "Research on racial preferences", twice in the lede, using two sources. After my edits, Zheng is cited heavily in the "Psychological effects" section, once in "Research on racial preferences", once in the lede, using two sources. So overall, I removed one citation in the lede, because it was more citing Zheng citing Lewis (2012).
::::::::::::::::::::::::::Shor & Golriz called their findings "counterintuitive", because it was in contrast to studies on (non-pornographic) media images, and found the opposite trend as Zhou & Paul. In terms of wide content analyses, there's only Zhou & Paul and Shor & Golriz. There's no reason both of these studies can't be true. ] (]) 05:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::Zheng (2016) was cited 12 times before, now just 8. Not that the citation count is even the actual text I'm talking about. And they write "in contrast to previous literature". And they mention pornography too, not just non-pornographic. Why do you lie so much constantly? ] (]) 05:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Sorry, but you can remove the personal attack or this conversation is not going to continue. ] (]) 05:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Well, what else would you call that? How can you have a conversation when the other person simply makes up things? You make more synth than even the IP editor from before. And it's you who needlessly just started an SPI against me and didn't even apologise for it. ] (]) 05:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::I understand your offence at the SPI, so I'm sorry that I falsely accused you. Try to see it from my perspective when I saw how new your account is and the circumstances here.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Can we continue with the discussion? ] (]) 06:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::And to fit their whims they just stop responding, having been proven wrong but wikilawyering on some red herring slight. I added many of their additions back in. I didn't mass revert. What they just do is mass remove sources, mass revert everything and then wikilawyer about the other side edit warring. ] (]) 06:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
{{od|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::}} Well, I noticed you had added some other sources. Your "Racial Violence against Asian Americans" doesn't mention fetish even once. After that for the violence statement in the lede you have added a bunch of non-scientific pop culture articles like from Teen Vogue. ] (]) 06:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)


:I would like this discussion to be productive. I really would.
The actual quote is the following:
:Your comments ], ], and especially ] are rude and unhelpful. If a productive discussion is to take place, it needs to be respectful. I'm more than open to discussions about improving the article but incivility toward me is is really preventing that. ] (]) 15:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
::I mean, you just posted "Can we continue with the discussion?" after all the replies (that much is obvious because it would block you from posting if there is an edit conflict). Now that I brought up very simple points, you simply suddenly decide to not to respond. Again, for the how manieth time. ] (]) 04:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|KSDerek}} sorry for taking so long to respond. I do support the mass reversion of the recent changes hy ShinyAlbatross, except where consensus was already achieved where they were helpful. The biggest problem here is their own enormous deletion of sourced content (which they have also done elsewhere...), which again does not appear to be based on any real reasoning. The isssue is not the addition of new content to the article, but their vast deletion of content. Meaning their additions are perfectly fine to add where they are reliably sourced and accurate. ] (]) 17:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
::::@] I suggest you stay out of this discussion, given ] ], as you have ostensibly never edited this page before and entering at this point could be seen as ]. ] (]) 17:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Hello, I am a lurker on this page. I do not believe that telling ] to stay out of this discussion is well founded. There seems to be consensus in their favor, it seems you are the only one in disagreement.
:::::I would like to see my name to the hat of users in agreement with ] and ], they are both in the right on this one. ] (]) 16:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


== Changes on Sep 30 - notes ==
:"Some say Asian fetish' is just a harmless preference for specific physical characteristics, such as narrow eyes and flatter noses, as harmless as some people's preference for dating, say, fatter partners."


====Interview with porn performers====
The colorq source went through a lot of trouble to specify both sides of the asian fetish issue. One side indicating it's a benign while the other side saying it's not. If you read closely you realize that ] was trying to imply that it's general accepted by ALL the notion that asian fetish is benign when actually the source specifically specified only some believed this notion. I found that way ] chopped the quote was an attempt to mitigate Asian fetish. Seeing how ] wanted this page deleted and is continually deleting content from this page I can make this conclusion.


Received a "failed verification" note on the comment on anti-Asian violence. See these quotes from the article:
I've found this manipulation of source data all over the page.


{{tq|The industry has not exactly been sensitive or responsive to these discussions. Shortly after the Atlanta shootings...}}
Another example is the "Racial preferences in dating" dating part of the page. Originally this was written as claiming that a scientific study proved that asian fetish does not exist. That's so far from the truth. An article was written in salon magazine in which one of the authors of the study derived from the study that it proved to HIM that asian fetish does not exist. Please read the old version of this part of the page and my version and look at the study and the article being referenced. I assure you that my entry is an unbiased view of the article and situation. With that I believe I can actually delete this section as this guy was obviously stating an opinion and wikipedia is not a source for opinions. Or at the very least this section does not deserve to have such a prominent place and use up a lot of space on this page. It's a biased opinion from one man. And it's sad that such bias comes from an author of the study which brings into question the validity of the study itself. vs


{{tq|Kush was also taken aback when a distribution company tagged her in a tweet promoting a scene titled “Asian Massage Invasion” shortly after the attacks.}}
Here's another example of older version of the definition that was on this page:
] (]) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


:You should add your signatures to each section if you want responses in each. So for this, there is nothing about anti-Asian violence, only a mention about the same incident you base everything on, and even that is just barely tied to one person through a tweet, so nothing like in the prose where you make it seem like they all talk about it in detail. It's very synth-like prose to make them say what you want them to say. ] (]) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:Asian fetish denotes a sexual attraction favoring Asian people for their race and perceptions of their culture.


::There's "nothing about anti-Asian violence" in this source? Huh?? "just barely tied to one person through a tweet"?
The above was written with a reference to Sheridan Prasso's "The Asian Mystique" book. I found that the following was the actual quote from which the above was summarized from:
::All I can say is, you should read the article again if you truly believe this. ] (]) 16:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)


:::That is a non-answer. You yourself pointed out the quotes you think mention it, but obviously don't? ] (]) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:"What isn't normal, however, is when preference crosses the invisible line, when Asian and Asian-American women on the receiving end feel--as Liao and Kwon say--objectified and valued not for who they are as people, but for their race or perceptions of the culture they come from."
::::Not sure what to tell you – I don't even know what you're claiming here. The quotes (and the article) clearly support the statement. ] (]) 21:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)


:::::They don't even mention violence. The first one has the author speaking, and none of the people you are claiming as the voices of it. Do you not see how there is no logical connection here? The second one has ONE of the people mention a tag of a tweet of scene with a title about Asian massages some time after a shooting at an Asian massage establishment. That is about sensitivity of a scene to a recent tragedy at a similar establishment, what connection is there to your claim? All you have is a vague original research interpretation and even then it's just one person and their reaction to a Twitter tag, not even them saying anything. ] (]) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
My version imo accurately convey the exact meaning that the author was trying to convey. The original summary was a gross manipulation of the source once again.
::::::I'm not sure you've even read the article now – if the question is "Do the interviewees criticize the industry in its response to anti-Asian violence?" the answer is obviously "yes". ] (]) 19:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)


I wrote this to make clear to all that I am neutral. The only mistakes I've made are noobie mistakes that people starting to edit in wikipedia does. And of course to make clear to all the situation I am putting up with on this page. ] (]) 01:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC) :::::::But there was no such question? How is that not original research, trying to read between the lines? Remember what the other IP editor did before? They added their own interpretations of what apparently the sources intended. Both you and I removed those "interpretations" as they weren't per source. ] (]) 23:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
===End Tkguy's Background Information===


====Shor & Golriz, Zhou & Paul====
My version does not use colorq.org as a source, like ]'s version, which does not fit into ]. it appears to be more like a personal site in that most of the articles have no authors. The site is bias. I write about this more in my background section above. Please note that ] acknowledge that it's not a valid source in our discussion below. I believe as posted above in my "Tkguy's background information" section that ] is not letting the colorq.org source "speak for itself" in the way he or she strategically chop up the quote to make it seem like the source is implying a greater acceptance of a notion when in fact the source tries to make sure that there are two different views on the issue of asian fetish. But once again I must emphasize that this is not a valid source. Please note that ] specifically single out white men as being the only race of men whom can objectify asians, which is obviously untrue. And note how ] tries to merge two distinct sources "The Asian Mystique" and the Audrey magazine article, "Fetish or Forever". If you actually read the two sources you realize they are saying very different things. One is a large well researched book and the other is an article stating somebody's opinion. The way ] is summarizing the two sources and placing references, is making it seem as though both pieces are in agreement and support one another. Once again ] is not letting the sources "speak for itself". I don't believe the sex crime issue should be included in the definition of Asian fetish. The page contains numerous consequences of Asian fetish, one being sex crimes. IMO the consequences belong in the body and not in the definition. It draws attention away from the actual definition of Asian fetish. Also note that Saranghae honey's version of the ] page uses a sex advice columnist, ], as a source which I am sure does not fit under ]. Please note that ] is a spokeswoman for Prostitutes of New York, or PONY, a sex workers advocacy organization. And please keep in mind we are discussing about the objectification of asians that is typically sexual in nature. Quan obviously is a person who will have a very extreme view on this subject that can not be used as a source as according to ]. (]) 07:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


There is nothing wrong with either of these studies and both should be included. One editor takes issue with Shor & Golriz, saying that the sample size was much smaller. However, the field of statistics tells us when a finding is significant, and (indirectly) whether our sample was too small to determine anything. Different thresholds exist, but p < 0.05 is generally the threshold of significance in most fields. Shor & Golriz report on their findings which reach that level of significance.
I am very confused with the comments below. In almost all the pages dealing with issues of ] and ] the first entry is used to define the term that the page is about. This is obviously where Asian fetish is being defined and is not the ]. Am I missing something here? Please look at the ] and ] pages and tell me how these pages are better using the ] standard as opposed to this page. Or should these pages be changed as well to fit into this ] standard?
Also I don't understand why colorq.org is being claimed to be a good source by ] and ]''']''']. Please look at this site and tell me how this can be a reputable source. Half of ] definition contains a quote, "a harmless preference for specific physical characteristics, such as narrow eyes and flatter noses, as harmless as some people's preference for dating, say, fatter partners", from this site. If this site is not a valid source then this quote can not be used and therefore this part of the definition can not be used. I have been asked to reference any and everything that I've added with a reputable valid source that adheres to ] to this page so I don't see why ] shouldn't be asked to do the same. I already explain all this above. I already have support for the fact that ] entry is poorly sourced by ] so please keep that it mind. ] (]) 23:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


Differences in their findings are far more likely to be the result of different methodologies — and it's easy to spot the ways in which they are different. For example:
=====Saranghae honey's comments=====
I prefer with heavy copy editing and additional sources. ] 01:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


* They were conducted on different websites
I thought the point of RfC was to have external comments not from those involved in the dispute. If <s>the RfC bot actually works and</s> someone gives a third comment and asks for my side of the situation, I'll be happy to explain my side. However, you may find some of my stance on the section below. As for ], a former prostitute and a writer, I do not believe her quotes violate WP:V as it says it is okay to use "questionable sources" as long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources." I also have problems with his conduct, another cause of the dispute. He has accused me of being a vandal and someone with an agenda to mitigate the article in question ( , his edit summaries used in the article, and the section below) against ] and ]. ] 02:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
* Shor & Golriz included "forceful penetration" as a criterion, and Zhou & Paul did not, perhaps because of coding challenges
* Shor & Golriz used a convenience sampling method focusing on ''popular'' videos, Zhou & Paul went to great lengths to try to sample ''random'' videos. Random videos are ideal for studying what is ''posted'' on the website, but popular videos are better for studying what ''people are actually watching'' on the website. Neither is superior - it depends on the question you are trying to answer.


I wouldn't go so far as to discuss these points in the article, because I think that's not Misplaced Pages's job. But I'm offering a plausible explanation for why the results were in opposite directions and that they do not ''directly contradict'' each other.
I admit that some of my edits are poorly written. Asian fetish is a controversial subject, and I didn't know how to word them to sound encyclopedic and neutral. ] 01:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


By placing undue emphasis on the sample size, I think this could be seen as non-neutral presentation of the research. The article should just present both neutrally.
=====Tkguy's comment=====
Once again nobody is writing about colorq.org and whether or not it's a valid source. And once again nobody is considering the fact that ] and ] pages start out with a definition. So name me a page that involves a social situation regarding race relations that starts out with a ]. Obviously the way you people write about it, it's seem like it's a widely accepted practice in regards to race base social interactions. ] (]) 01:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


Besides that, saying Asian women are more/less likely to be subjects to violence compared to White women does not make violence unconcerning. All violence is concerning, period, and researchers try to understand the reasons for violence. Those reasons might plausibly be rooted in racial stereotypes. Gender+racial motivations for violence are worth discussion (especially when high-quality sources discuss it) regardless of whether that violence is more or less than a different group.
So why does the ] and ] don't following the ] standard but this page has too? Please explain. Otherwise I can't see why this page should be any different. If there are no standard on other page that deals with a race base social concept then this page should not be used as an example. ] (]) 18:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
] (]) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


:There is nothing about fetish in these sources as mentioned, which is what has been mentioned numerous times. And the other problems brought up weren't touched upon at all, that they include Japanese pornography ie certainly not fetish pornography and that secondary sources should be preferred. You had criticized and removed a different source apparently just for being 19 years old but have no issue with the older 2002 source based on just 56 images found on the internet? The sources were presented with just the facts but you keep wanting to add your prose. So, should the prose be removed? ] (]) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
====Comments from uninvolved parties====
It's not solely a definition. It's the lead of the article. Saranghae's version is more in-line with ] and is sourced. ''']''']''']''' 18:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
:Poorly sourced. ] (]) 20:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


::It's not necessary that every source directly say the word "fetish" if it's a related issue and relevance to the topic has been established elsewhere.
I think the word "definition" might actually be the problem. This is a ], and it's supposed to summarize the article. The "definition" is just that, and completely fails to capture large blocks of article, such as sex crimes. If we really want the definition to stand, much of the article would have to be excised. I'm not sure where else we would put this material.
::We've been on this topic before. Shor & Golriz: "Furthermore, this finding cannot be attributed to differing norms in various porn industries, as Asian female performers were likely to suffer from aggression in both Japanese- and Western-produced videos (in fact, even slightly more so in the latter)."
::Rothman: again, we've been here before, and I'm not repeating all of what was said. Rothman is a reliable source except for the description of Shor & Golriz. Rothman also didn't say what you wrote she did.
::Source removed for being 19 years old: I said you could add it back (although I think the information added was trivial). Again, we've been here before.
::Gossett and Byrne is an older study, but is still relevant and talked about in much newer review articles like Forbes, Yang & Lim. ] (]) 16:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)


:::It's necessary that they touch upon the topic... Pretty pointless otherwise. And the only way relevance has been established is because you push the pornography topic from other sources now. And as mentioned, Shor and Golriz specified how the general literature had disagreed with their findings, and in that line they also cherry-picked the only category of aggression out of many where it was that way, and then you cherry-pick that line out of all, like a long line of cherry-picking to get a result, very scientific. I pointed out how Rothman doesn't mention Shor and Golriz for the part she is quoted, unlike what you stated. You oppose Rothman's use for some matter Rothman isn't even used for? So, you keep removing Rothman for not being up to your standards as a source, but not Shor and Golriz, who are very cherry-picking in their interpretations and methods? And you have never added the 19 year old back even though you have talked about it many times. Gossett and Byrne is another bizarre source. They looked at 56 images in 2002. That is a bizarre sampling even in 2002. Is this source up to your standards even though it clearly seems very shoddy? ] (]) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
As an aside, the lead block doesn't even need to be cited, so long as it mirrors the article which is appropriately referenced. ] '']'' 22:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
::::* Shor and Golriz say their study "seem to stand in contrast" with previous studies, and then provided some theories as to why
::::* It's not for you to say whether a study is good or bad. Researchers obtain years of education and go through peer review to try to ensure their study is good. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, it only has to come from a reliable source.
::::* Rothman misinterpreted Shor & Golriz as a content demographics study, which it is not
::::* "Rothman deems that the findings of the depictions of Asian women in pornography aren't consistent" is not supported by what Rothman writes
::::* Other sections of Rothman's text are fine
::::We've had this discussion before. Please go back and re-read previous threads if you have more questions. ] (]) 21:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
::::{{Quote|And you have never added the 19 year old back even though you have talked about it many times.}}
::::Please, go ahead. ] (]) 21:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)


:::::For the first point, exactly, and pushing only one side to the lede is unbalanced. And like you write, it's not for you to decide whether a study is bad, so why do you keep removing Rothman? Who decided that? And you claim you found some unrelated mistake in Rothman to decide it's bad? That portion isn't even what it's used for? Rothman is most of all secondary source, which is preferred. And Rothman quotes Zhou and Paul about the statement on Asian pornography, and writes that race based pornography content analyses are rare and that "so few content analyses have been conducted to answer questions about how depictions of people by race may be evolving over time, and about racism and pornography". It's not focusing on just Asian in that part, so it could be changed to "findings of the depictions of Asian women and race in pornography aren't consistent or comprehensive" or something to that effect. So, which sections by Rothman are fine? We have had this discussion but you haven't been willing to talk much before. And how would you be willing to accept old sources back? I also noticed that in the research section the 1995 study was removed, the 2020 study was removed and key information about the 2013 Lin study was removed. Your explanations for the removals are very sparse, like apparently your reason for removing the 1995 source is again because you simply deem it not reliable enough on your own accord. For the how manieth source. The type of reasoning you use for removing the 1995 reference would very well apply to removing Gossett and Byrne too, and it's at the heart of your claims. ] (]) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:I'm not claiming it's a good source. In fact, I agree that the sourcing of statements in this article is sloppy throughout, but the substance of the colorq sentence seems to mirror the last heading of this article, so could easily be used to summarize that section without any citation at all.
::::::* In Rothman's case, it's simply a ''mistake'', the way a typo is a mistake. It's not that I'm saying the evidence is insufficient or that Rothman is stretching the logic. In those cases, it's inappropriate for a Misplaced Pages editor to judge. ]
::::::* As I said above: "saying Asian women are more/less likely to be subjects to violence compared to White women does not make violence unconcerning. All violence is concerning, period, and researchers try to understand the reasons for violence. Those reasons might plausibly be rooted in racial stereotypes. Gender+racial motivations for violence are worth discussion (especially when high-quality sources discuss it) regardless of whether that violence is more or less than a different group"
::::::* I'm not sure what those other studies have to do with this. They don't; and my reasoning was solid for any changes I made and I wrote down everything. And that's not the reason I removed Cunningham (1995).
::::::] (]) 19:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)


:::::::It doesn't really matter what it is in Rothman's case, because that portion you focus on isn't even used in the article. If you say it's wrong about an unused matter, why does that matter? Considering Woan wasn't reliable on something that it is used for, do I look for the other times it's unreliable too, on matters not related to our topic? And in your second point you write "regardless of whether" "more or less", yet you only seem to push one view in the lede, why is that? You seem to acknowledge there being a discussion, a disagreement, two views, yet why does only one view get allowed in the lede? And I pointed out the other studies you cut, because you cut them for reasons one could also apply to Gossett and Byrne and its strange evidence of 56 images, which was odd a long time ago too, considering that wasn't there text and a reference about violence in pornography decreasing over time at the page for Pornography? If we apply that logic, is this study simply out of date? Also, when I was just reading on some guidelines, I was reminded that Woan specifies their article being from a standpoint of critical race theory and feminist jurisprudence. The Misplaced Pages lede for that theory holds that "Academic critics of CRT argue it is based on storytelling instead of evidence and reason, rejects truth and merit, and undervalues liberalism." I'm not here to argue about that, but clearly it is a controversial theory, and I think we can both agree on categorizing the article's standpoint as a radical viewpoint, can we not? ] (]) 23:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:And yes, I think ] is good style and should be used unless there's a good reason not to. Very large topics act as a gateway to many articles in ], so a proper lead is sometimes impossible. However, a summary style lead is feasible and desirable for this article. ] '']'' 00:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


====Miller & McBain, Rothman====
::I agree with the more inclusive lead block. It should include all major perspectives in the article. ] (]) 07:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


Rothman doesn't say the thing it says she did. I think Rothman ''should'' be an excellent source, except for the obvious way Shor & Golriz is misinterpreted (see my previous comments on Rothman). Rothman's text should not be used to describe Shor & Golriz.
== Resolving dispute ==


Miller & McBain is fine, but doesn't add any new information. The original wording of "Studies of more general pornography have shown mixed results" is fine, but I'll keep Miller & McBain since it's a secondary source.
I would still like to reach a consensus with Tkguy while waiting for request for comment. I believe the request for comment bot has been malfunctioning for quite a while.
] (]) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


:I have no idea why you hate including Rothman so much and keep removing it. Earlier, I pointed out how you misread Rothman completely. It's completely Misplaced Pages recommended style of secondary source commentary on those studies and in a respectable textbook on the topic. ] (]) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
In short,
::You ''said'' I misread Rothman completely, but I don't know your reason, and I don't believe I did. Again, we had this conversation already. ] (]) 16:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
*It seems like User:Tkguy thinks colorq is not a credible source. Fine.
*I don't believe that ] should be discredited because she is a sex columnist. She seems like a prominent Asian American figure and also an author who has written multiple books.
*I put up Phoebe Eng's quotes, but it is important to read the article to see the proper context. If Tkguy disagrees with my interpretation, I'm open to a discussion hopefully without the accusations that I am mitigating something. ] 02:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


:::Like pointed out above, you claim Rothman was used for something it wasn't. ] (]) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:Tracy Quan served as a spokeswoman for Prostitutes of New York. Are you joking me? We are dealing with the topic of the objectification of asians and here you are using a former part asian prostitute as your source? First off your source is in the context of her being paid as a sex advice columnist. and to call her a "prominent Asian American figure" is very insulting to asians. Once again you are grossly manipulating your source. Her views are extreme so therefore can not be used as a source other than for the topic of prostitution or on herself.
:You write about quotes from Phoebe but there are no quotes on the page. Where are the quotes? if you must you can just revert back to the old entry and the old reference. Have you even read this source? If not, you should not be manipulating the references or the notion it's supporting in any way. ] (]) 02:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


====General wordsmithing====
::I would like to place an emphasis on "former" prostitute. She's a prostitute, not a Nazi. Pol Pot was a prominent Cambodian. Is that fact a slap in the face to Cambodians? Again, you accuse me of manipulating and mitigating. We will see what will happen through the RfC. I already put up Phoebe Eng's quotes in the footnotes. Take your time to read it. Thanks.] 03:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
:::She's a former prostitute who fights for the rights for prostitutes. Meaning she does not have a problem with the profession. She's a spokesperson for a prostitute organization in NY! that makes her an incredibly bias source for a topic that deals with the objectification of asians. You are grabbing at straws here. I suggest you find a real reputable source. Just like you made me do the same for everything I did on this page.
:::I read your phoebe quote how does the following
::::"Jackie Chan brings humanity and humor to his roles, and that's good," she says. "But he's still a karate-chop character, and they're still cartoon characters in a way." She'd like to see more guys who aren't doing roundhouse kicks, which is why she's pleased about Rick Yune. "He is just one of many Asian-American men who are really turning around that whole emasculated-Asian-man stereotype," Eng says. "He's a very good-looking guy.
::::"There are so many people populating ads in all of these fashion magazines. Look through an issue of Vogue or GQ. Asian-American men are seen as a very vigorous buying audience," she adds.
:::become this?
::::Phoebe Eng has argued that not all Asians feel that Asian fetish is bad, since it has given new sexual visibility and liberation to an otherwise invisible and disadvantaged minority in the media.
:::This makes no sense. Absolutely no sense. To say that her quote supports this sentence means you have absolutely no intentions of doing good faith editing. ] (]) 03:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
::::I would recommend reading ]. Your mistakes and conduct are much more than your "noobie mistakes." If you don't agree with Phoebe Eng's quote in the Chihara's article, fine. <s>If you don't like Tracy Quan because she is a prostitute, fine, because I just found another source.</s> ] 03:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


I don't see any good reasons to change these. For example, changing "Asian women report a number of harms" to "There may be a number of harms" with the reason given that Asian fetish is not specific to Asian women. Sure, but the sources talk about Asian women specifically, which is true of 99% of this article. Increasingly I think this article ''should'' just cover heterosexual, male -> female Asian fetish in the United States since that's what the vast majority of writing is about, reserving a section for alternative framings.] (]) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Tracy Quan is not a source, just an opinion. Just because she is a prostitute, it does not mean that her opinion should not be on an article. Asian fetish is not something scientific or medical that can be easily proven by studies. I'm just trying to provide different perspectives. I will put up another article as I have said before. ] 03:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::This is incredible. I have no problems with prostitutes. I have a problem with using the opinion of prostitutes when it comes to a topic regarding the objectification of asians. Prostitution is a profession where people are selling their bodies. They are being paid to be objectified sexually by others. Therefore she is extremely bias in regards to the objectification of asians. Also you stated that this is an opinion and for that reason alone this can not be used as a source according to ]. I suggest you find a reputable source to back up these notions. Until then they should be removed. Just like you removed all that other stuff from this page for the lack of valid sources. I had to back up everything I put on this page with a reputable source so you will have to do the same. ] (]) 03:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


:Like I mentioned, you yourself had edited the article to be about Asian men facing it too, but now you only want to focus on Asian women when it comes to the negatives? And even the original wording would ask for a "who?" template because who is the text talking about? That language is not at all Misplaced Pages style. ] (]) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::The only "sources" I have removed are blogs and excessive external links. Can you show me the sources I deleted in the form of diffs? ] 03:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
::In principle, "Asian fetish" is agnostic to sexual orientation and gender. But as a ''social phenomenon which is defined and discussed in popular and academic sources'', the vast majority focus exclusively on heterosexual American men and Asian women.
::When the source is doing this, the article should do this. Plain and simple. To frame it from the opposite direction, turning it into the generalized statement "There may be a number of harms" is not properly supported because there is no source saying this for gay/straight Asian men or gay Asian women. ] (]) 16:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)


:::You'd have to add a source for that claim. Because for now we have a source talking about it applying to men too and you even added text to that effect. If there is a source that only looks at women's issues, without it specifying that the fetish only concerns women, well, you can't claim it does. What alternative do you offer to that line then? ] (]) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Also, I believe that using Tracy Quan's quotes shouldn't be a problem since ] says it is okay to use questionable sources as long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources." ] 03:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
::::Turning it into the generalized statement "There may be a number of harms" is not properly supported because there is no source saying this for gay/straight Asian men or gay Asian women ] (]) 21:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)


:::::So, what is supported by sources then? Definitely not your "Asian women report". Again, that would require "who?" template. Who are you talking about? In the body you have "Targets of Asian fetish report". Why is it suddenly Asian women in the lede? Why did you change it for the lede? So, I assume you will be happy if I change it to 100% your text with "Targets of Asian fetish report"? Or not? You don't want your own text from the body to be used in the lede to point at that text in the body? ] (]) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Hi M. This is a controversial article. The main problem I see is not in the addition of sources, but the inappropriate way they can be presented. I know it could be a hard process, but I believe anything that is potentially inflammatory or racist, should be removed from the article and taken straight to this talkpage to be discussed, even if it is from a good source. From that point it can be either very carefully discussed with due time and effort, for either careful addition, or sensible rejection.] (]) 05:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


====Sources relating to connection to violence====
::::::::Thank you. I would also be happy if you would provide some comment on the RfC above. As a Korean, I understand that Asian fetish is a controversial topic. However, I do not believe that they were presented in a racist or an inflammatory way, and I have no intention to distort them. Could you go into more details to explain this? ] 05:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


I've added 3 secondary, academic sources to support these claims: Forbes, Zheng, and Woan. One should really be enough. If there is an opposing voice here, find it in a reliable source and add it to the article. But so far, I haven't found any source that says there ''is no'' link between Asian fetish and anti-Asian violence.] (]) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Tracy Quan has published in multiple anthologies/reference works relating to sex work: a chapter in ''Prostitution & Pornography: Philosophical Debate About the Sex Industry'' along with feminist icons like Catharine Mackinnon, an essay in ''Whores and Other Feminists'', and an essay in the ''Encyclopedia of Prostitution and Sex Work''. The fact that she was a sex worker qualifies her, rather than disqualifies her from writing on the subject. She is a fine source. ] (]) 08:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


:Not that you added the other two, but those mentions are notably based on the 2002 study of the 56 pornography images which they reference. That is used by all except Zheng who then only very briefly mentions the matter with Woan as a source, so in the end it's based on it too. These sources predate the other studies. And the focus is not on the fetish but pornography. As we see in the earlier mentioned secondary sources, like Rothman which you keep removing for whatever reason, they say it's mixed whether that pornography is linked to violence, so yes, it's contrary, so it's ridiculous to claim in the lede based on the few mentions and ignore other sources. You already had it in the body, but try to force it in the lede even though it's a controversial view. And you added the Harvard Law back with a quote about the WW2 internments and 1992 Los Angeles riots? Are you mistaking this article for just general racism article? It clearly doesn't belong. ] (]) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:I do not agree. this violates the ] of using extreme sources. Tracy Quan is far too extreme and plus this is her in the context of a sex advice columnist. Sex advice columnists are paid to give their opinion. And wikipedia ] once again states that opinions should not be used as a source. But if you put this in I will put in a note that Tracy is a former prostitute and a spokeperson for PONY. This should made very clear as this is a page regarding the objectification of asians and we are talking about a part asian person who is a former prostitute who obviously have no problem with people being sexually objectified. This is so very insulting for asians that the views of a former asian prostitute is being used so prominently to support the notion that Asian fetish is something benign. ] (]) 10:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
::Being based on one incident isn't a strike against notability — single incidents can be extremely important historical events.
::But you're also wrong about that. Forbes et al cite 3 studies in addition to the Atlanta spa shooting. Zheng cites 5 more (including Woan). Woan (2008) mentions many specific incidents:
::* An infamous issue of Penthouse featuring Asian women being bound and tortured, some ambiguously shown as potentially even dead, which inspired a nation-wide anti-pornography protest.
::* Two months after this issue, the incident of an eight-year-old Chinese girl being raped and lynched
::* The 2005 case of Princeton University student Michael Lohman going around cutting Asian women's hair off and pouring his urine and semen into their drinks over 50 times,
::* The 2001 case of David Dailey and Eddie Ball abducting and raping two Japanese schoolgirls
::* The 2002 case of Richard Borelli Anderson murdering Lili Wang at North Carolina State University
::... and the heading of this section in Woan's text is "Case of the Asian Fetish Syndrome".
::I do think that overall, content analyses of pornography are rather thin and aging, and pornography has changed so much in the last 20 years. But there is ''no contrary or superceding evidence'' against Gossett & Byrne, and it gets a mention in Forbes et al., a high-quality secondary source published just last year. I'm completely open to an opposing viewpoint here, it only needs to be found in a reliable source.
::Anyway, you said I ignored other sources. Which sources would those be? ] (]) 17:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)


:::It is when it's not talked about afterwards. Also, your interpretation of sources is very liberal again. The two main issues you bring up for Woan are both in one short sentence in a footnote, attributing it to "Helen Zia". But Woan is seemingly misreading the author, it's not Helen Zia but Sumi K. Cho. Helen Zia is the author for another work in the anthology. So, like earlier with Rothman, should this be immediately disqualified for Woan not even being able to get such simple things correct? Or does the cherry-picking of sources happen again? It's also hard to understand what evidence Woan has of these incidents being related to any fetish when there is seemingly none. I'd also be interested in where are these other sources you mention for Forbes, because Forbes talks of many things in that paragraph like sex trafficking, so which sources are used for the violence claim? And Gossett and Byrne were contrary to Zhou and Paul. And like mentioned, Gossett and Byrne is a very shoddy study based on 56 images in 2002 which was odd even in 2002. The most comprehensive study done on the matter by far is Zhou and Paul. The other sources are Rothman, which you keep removing, and Miller and McBain. ] (]) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
::OK? You want to contextualize her as a former prostitute and sex worker rights advocate, go for it. The problem is, once you start talking about sex, you open up the whole can of worms: namely, that there are people who have different views on sex, sex work, fetishes, kinks, etc. I don't understand the argument for censoring Quan because she is a former sex worker. ] (]) 16:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
::::Not sure where you're getting that from, clearly lists Zia as the author of the chapter.
::::If you want a contrasting viewpoint, please find it in a reliable source. ] (]) 21:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)


:::::You are right about Zia being the author, as the listing I had had Zia on the wrong line, but now when I read the source, what Woan attributes to Zia about "sexual stereotyped pornography and actual violence against Asian women" isn't there at all. Zia almost doesn't even mention pornography after the lead paragraph, where it's one of the things tied to the intersection of what makes up the "hate rape" they describe. Absolutely nothing about sexual stereotypes in pornography? Closest to that is in a sentence about a black woman: "Investigators could have raised issues of those white men's attitudes towards the victim as a black woman, found out whether hate speech of race-specific pornography was present, investigated the overall racial climate on campus, and brought all of the silenced aspects of the incident to the public eye." That was the closest it got, which isn't anywhere close. And they write that they looked into "hate rape" killings of Asian Americans, but could only find male victims. They spent effort to find a case like that young girl, and even then the connection is very slim, no description of the attacker and just loose timing of a murder in all of the United States. But the overall statement was that it's mostly male victims. We talked about this earlier too, you wanted sources that claim this about men being the target, and now you have it already. And like I wrote, the most comprehensive study done on the matter by far is Zhou and Paul, which is contrary to the pornography claims which are the basis in your sources using Gossett and Byrne's 56 images from 2002 as their evidence. ] (]) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Seems like Tkguy and Saranghae honey have found a reasonable solution on the Quan issue. Nice job on working together to arrive at a compromise. ] (]) 17:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::It will take a bit of time for me to source the Zia text. I doubt what you're saying is the full picture.
::::::Nonetheless, I said at the top that ''one'' high-quality secondary source is plenty for this. You're now digging into the sources of sources, which I can't see being fruitful unless each and every one of them somehow contains a serious obvious error. Dozens of authors and journals simply don't make "mistakes" like these.
::::::Gossett & Byrne and Zhou & Paul are two completely different studies. Zhou & Paul definitely doesn't cancel out Gossett & Byrne, or Shor & Golriz for that matter. High quality secondary sources agree. ] (]) 19:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Alright, found it.
::::::Contains 5 examples of violence against Asian women. Zia's point was that these incidents are rarely investigated as hate crimes, even when there is ample reason for suspicion.
::::::If you're looking for a connection between pornography and violence, there's another essay in the same anthology, page 518. "Using Pornography".
::::::Or, I mean, just look at Gossett & Byrne, which is what Woan does. ] (]) 22:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)


:::::::But you have done exactly what I did. Before, you looked at sources of sources and removed references based on that. You claimed that a source in a source was just a blog post. Well, I can't find that Mason 2016 anymore. Again, you are allowed to do all kinds of things, yet deny them from me. And I also noticed that the study by Gossett and Byrne isn't even based on 56 images from 2002, but from 1999, so by this point 26 years old. They also qualified that any site which had text "rape" or "forced" to be of rape porn, so anything on one of the sites they listed (none of which work anymore): "rape.bizarre.nu.html" seemingly qualified as rape porn according to them. Whereas Zhou and Paul looked at a large number of recent videos on a major website, and actually qualified the behavior seen in the videos according to different metrics. And high quality secondary sources like Miller and McBain or Rothman, which disagree with the one-sided interpretation? And you found Zia, and wrote nothing about pornography in it, which is what it is used for in Woan, so you yourself proved Woan is reading sources in a very strange fashion. And Gossett and Byrne, again, hardly function to support their own findings with the odd small bit of evidence they quickly looked up, let alone the freeform interpretations based on it. ] (]) 23:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
==Adoption, from my talk page==
Where in the wikipedia policy does it say that "non-WEIGHTy non sequitur" items can be removed? There are a lot of 2 sentence sections on this page, why weren't they removed? Seeing how you haven't recently updated this page in the past, I am wondering why you didn't talk about your deletion on the talk page before hand? Did you know that more than 1 out every 10 korean in america came here by way of international adoption? Did you know that these adoptees are 5 times more likely to commit suicide then other childrens? I added this information in but somebody said that I needed a reputable source to back up the inclusion of this data on this page. Anybody can see that these adoptees are being objectified which is the basis of asian fetish. the problem with adoption is that people doing the adoption are trying to prevent any negative information from getting out regarding the process. You can see this issue in the edit warring going on the ] and other related pages. ] (]) 00:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


====Tourism section====
:I've never edited this page before today. The answer is ]. The fact that one woman believes her adoptive mother has an Asian fetish isn't terribly encyclopedic. It adds very little, and has no real context. It makes no claim for how common it is. Nothing. If others think this is a topic essential to Asian fetish, please find better sources that give some notion of WEIGHT. ] '']'' 00:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


Regarding the "not relevant" tagging of this section, I partially agree that some claims in this section are somewhat tangential and not directly connected to the article topic. Western men paying for sexual services in Asia alone isn't enough to claim "fetish", since there are a number of different possible motivations, and it's very difficult to identify/quantify each one.
:I second Cool Hand Luke's comment. Also, incorporating unpublished facts in an article constitutes ]. Except for one essay no source establishes a relationship between Asian fetish and adoption of Asian babies. ] 00:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
::Added it in the controversy section. If you have a problem with that then let me know. ] (]) 12:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


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


{{tq|Tourism to Asia is organized within the political economy of global relations and derives its market value from the general commodification of the “Orient” as well as the commodification of leisure and pleasure. Current constructions of “Asia” are successors to the Orient of nineteenth-century imperialism, travelers’ tales, early anthropology, and their associated projects, all resulting in the collapse of the exotic and erotic to create a '''fetishized''', imagined Other with little attention to empirical veracity (Said, 1978; Kabbani, 1986; Marcus, 1992).}}
==Moe Tkacik==
Saranghae honey removed the reference to the jezebel.com site written by Moe Tkacik. This is no different than the Tracy Quan's sex column source. I will add it back in. This person has worked for the Wall Street Journal and Time Asia. So she has credentials in commenting on the issue of Asian fetish. ] <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I removed it because it's a blog. Blogs normally aren't used as a source. ] 17:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


{{tq| Said, and others following his lead, have argued that current constructions of “Asia” are successors to the '''fetishized''', largely mythic, geographically proximate, and sometimes faithless “Orient” of the nineteenth century (Said, 1978; Kabbani, 1986; Cocks, 1989; Marcus, 1992; Suleri, 1992), such that the popular representations of Asia in general, and countries such as Thailand in particular, are a sentimental mix of the erotic and exotic.}}
{{hat|reason=Incivility, apparently from both sides. Comment on the content, not the contributers}}
==whining by Tkguy==
This page is under arbitration. Everything I added was put on scrutiny and so it's only fair that everything everybody else adds should be treated the same. Since you can't give a valid reason for adding the reference. I will remove it. ] (]) 07:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
:Boy this guy's a pedantic little creep. No ''wonder'' you guys scrutinize everything he writes. Keep up the good work. ] (]) 07:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
{{hab}}
::You shouldn't be going around calling people names. Why don't you assume good faith editing? I did by not deleting your changes until I found out why you added the yellow cab reference in. But seeing how you don't think you need to provide a reason I realized you are pretty much saying that it there because you said so. So now I will delete this entry. ] (]) 07:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


This section could be pared down and linked to ] as a "see also". ] (]) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:::It's not a reference, it's a see also link. There was certainly no source regarding adoption and Asian fetish but it's not deleted, is it. You also need to assume good faith and that other editors edit the article to improve and expand the article. ] 08:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


:If there is one source that mentions "fetishized" in passing in two parts, and seemingly just talking of the image of the countries, it's not much to go on? ] (]) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:If you would just work with other editors more constructively... By the way, controversy is not a misc section for paragraphs and information that doesn't fit neatly under other sections. Everyone has different opinions and biases. Just because you don't like one man's study, doesn't mean it goes to the controversy section... ] 07:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
::I'm all for improvement of this section. I don't think it should be ''eliminated'', since sex tourism is mentioned in numerous sources as well (e.g. Woan, since I was just looking at it). I'm also cognizant this article is already too long and probably a paragraph or two is enough. ] (]) 17:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)


:::Woan has been shown to be fairly unreliable in their interpretations, interpreting everything to be fetish without any evidence, and like shown they also get simple things you quote them for wrong. ] (]) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, you are right I had a hard time working with Chris Mann Mckay and Kietenbushi. But guess what they were proven to be vandals and were 3rr blocked. So just like the way you summarize your sources you are misrepresenting this situation as it is. BTW I keep up with asian american news and this article was very very controversial. Lots of people wrote about this article and panned it. Of course there were a lot of support from non-asian men for the article. ] (]) 07:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
::::See above – Woan is fine. There's opinion involved, but it's well-researched and published. If you want to present a different opinion, find it in a reliable source. ] (]) 21:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}


:::::We established above that Woan is fairly liberally quoting the sources, coming up with things that weren't really said in them. And like I wrote, the most comprehensive study done on the matter by far is Zhou and Paul, which is contrary to the pornography claims which are the basis in your sources using Gossett and Byrne's 56 images from 2002 as their evidence. And we have secondary sources Miller and McBain and Rothman. Like let's get to the root of your sources. All the evidence all your sources base their claims on are the Gossett and Byrnett 2002 study on 56 images, which was strange even in 2002. Then you have Shor and Golriz, which quoting you "Shor and Golriz say their study "seem to stand in contrast" with previous studies, and then provided some theories as to why" and talk about how Japanese pornography that their study heavily bases itself on is more aggressive, but in one sentence they cherry-picked one category of aggression where it was the opposite, and you also cherry-picked that sentence out of all the text. Are these two the basis of your actual evidence besides just claims? Considering we also have evidence in contrast like Zhou and Paul, and Miller and McBain finding the general results inconclusive. There is no way you can just push one side of the interpretation in the lede. ] (]) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
==Additional source==


:Also, you had accused of canvassing before, but I just happened to come by canvassing to this article on a non-Misplaced Pages website. The person seemed interested in similar things to you, but in good faith I assume it's not you? ] (]) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I found this article from . The magazine has an editorial board and has been featured in several national media outlets. Has some interesting criticisms about the selective application of the label to white men seeking Asian women. ] (]) 07:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
::No idea what you're referring to. Post the link - I have nothing to hide. ] (]) 17:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
:::If it's not you, then it's probably not ok to share. Also, I added a note that you also removed in your rush to just revert. You didn't respond to it at all either. ] (]) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
::::If you want me to respond to something, post it here on the talk page. ] (]) 21:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)


:::::Let me get this straight. You are allowed to leave the notes in the source. But I am not, according to you. You will simply revert me adding notes, and leave your own in. This is so unconstructive. ] (]) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:Thank you. It's already included in the footnotes at the controversy section. (next to "The controversy surrounding the term has been criticized as a notion that preference for a minority and portrayal of a minority as an attractive group is abnormal.") Please feel free to expand/reword. It's been difficult to incorporate the points from the editorial and word them to be neutral. ] 07:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
::::::Leave all the comments you want – but if you want me to see and reply to them, put them here. ] (]) 19:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)


:::::::So, I assume I am allowed to use notes now? Also, concerning the third dispute noticeboard listing you have made of me now, with the following text: "He has insulted me, made frivolous arguments, refused to get the point, is pushing a POV, and at this point is just wasting as much of my time as possible." If you state that I insulted you by making a negative statement about the way you argue some weeks ago, what would you call all of that then? Do you not see it's not only repeats that kind of behavior multiple times, but that noticeboard posts are also supposed to be neutral? Although I think I pointed that second part out already. ] (]) 23:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:Do you have any other articles from Audrey regarding this topic? I could only find two. ] 07:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:37, 11 January 2025

Skip to table of contents
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconSociology Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

WikiProject iconAsia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPsychology Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18


This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Critique of section: "History"

Again keeping with my previous critiques, I will leave this here for a few days to allow discussion before attempting to fix the issues I have identified.

In the 1800s, after the opening of Japan by Matthew Perry, word began to spread in the United States about the seductive femininity of Asian women. Nationalistic fears that Asian women would seduce White men and destroy White families led to the passage Page Act of 1875, which prevented Chinese women from entering the United States.

"Word began to spread" is a strange way of framing it. It assumes that Asian women are seductively feminine, instead of how the message of Asian prostitutes and geishas shaped a fantasy of Asian women as "seductive and sinister".

"Nationalistic fears that Asian women would seduce White men and destroy White families" again, doesn't mention prostitutes whereas the source text clearly does.

As early as the 1920s, it was noticed that White Dutch men preferred South East Asian women over White women. When Indonesia was a colony of the Netherlands, a new beauty ideal was established, which ranked local women with light brown skin and lustrous black hair at the top. The American consul general to Indonesia remarked that, to the average man, a mixed-race Indonesian woman was considered more attractive than a "pure" White woman, because White women's complexions were too pale. The legacy of this colonial fetishization continues to be reflected in local literature, where women with European features (such as blond hair) are pitied, and it is written that "a golden-colored skin is the greatest gift that Allah can bestow upon a woman".

While there is some truth here, this goes too far and states things too strongly. Saying "a new beauty ideal was established" makes it sound like a sexual hierarchy was virtually institutionalized. It fails to mention the economic motives from the source. The quote "a golden-colored skin is the greatest gift that Allah can bestow upon a woman" is from a Sundanese woman - it doesn't make sense to claim that an Asian woman upholding an Asian beauty standard is afflicted with colonial fetishism. Lastly, this is too long in proportion to its importance.

After World War II, the U.S. military occupied Japan, and U.S. soldiers began to interact with Japanese women.

From Thomas (2021) (summaries my own, although it's a faithful approximation of the text):

  • In the aftermath of WW2, the "Tokyo Rose" ideal emerged which further exoticised Asian women by allowing American GIs to "transfer their racial fantasies and hostilities"
  • Military-endorsed prostitution and regulation of brothels contributed to the conception of Asian women as prostitutes.

From Nagatomo:

  • Although brothels were established in an attempt to regulate sex work and reduce rapes, these were closed by the Americans due to large outbreaks of STIs.

There was a perception that Japanese women were superior to American women, and there was a widespread sentiment "that a Japanese woman's heart was twice as big as those of her American sisters".

You would think, reading this, that the dynamic between American GIs and Japanese women was respectful and one of mutual attraction. However, from Thomas's text:

  • American soldiers in Japan, Korea, and Vietnam believed in their racial superiority and expected Asian women to be sexually available.

Nagatomo's text:

  • American GIs were "swept off their feet by the deference and obedience of servile Japanese women"
  • American GIs "praised the Japanese women for their kindly qualities, their submissiveness, and their eagerness to make the men comfortable"

The current article completely ignores mentions of stereotypical descriptions that put Asian women in subservient positions.

Moving on to Lim's writing on the Oriental Wave, it is indeed significant and interesting. However, the summary stops at 1959, notably before the Vietnam War. Lim states in her conclusion:

From 1959 forward, one might argue that iconic Asian American women set the stage for stereotypes that keep Asian American women in subordinate positions.

But this article decides to end it on:

also marked the beginning of the end of White women's dominance as the mainstream beauty ideal in America.

This is an incredible statement, and not present in the source. Here's what the source actually says:

Though Asian women triumphed over white ones in the Miss Universe pageant, the Academy Awards, and the cover of Life magazine, in differing ways each woman had to contend with body alterations to meet contem- porary standards of appearance. Through and through, their cultural iconography was predicated upon invoking European American standards of femininity.

Lastly, I believe this section needs to connect to other sections discussing war brides, sex tourism, and depictions in media as these topics are an important part of the history, too. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Critique of section: "International Marriage"

Starting with the stats rundown at the top:

  • The Washington Post article is fine, if dated.
  • The census data source does not include Asians. No idea where these numbers were pulled from. It seems the US Census doesn't track this. Remove.
  • Likewise, for Chou (2012), she doesn't cite a source. I wouldn't question a published source if it were something the author had direct access to, but for this type of data the primary source needs to be stated. I also found a version of her text that includes the numbers, but the math doesn't math, and again, there is no primary source listed. Remove.
  • Pew Research centre actually has some real numbers, but they aren't even mentioned in this article. I'm beginning to lose faith that anybody has actually read any of these sources.

This section needs to mention war brides by their name. War brides. Another example of this article viewing the subject through rose-tinted glasses.

Paragraphs about Debbie Lum and Bitna Kim belong in a different section, maybe a new section, about the perceptions of White (or Western) men with Asian fetish.

Thai section is a little fuzzy, but whatever. The Swedish men–Thai women thing is just a note from a bulletin from 2016 – no data, no trend. Questionable relevance. Remove.

Indian/Danish/Asian divorce trends (Mishra 2016): Editorial articles are not a great source for divorce statistics, especially when the primary source isn't listed. Also, what does this have to do with the topic? ShinyAlbatross (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits

Since there seems to only be three people here, I'll first point out that I am not the other editor you have been talking to, and I disagree with their ideas too. But you have had very strange removals of sources, User:ShinyAlbatross. Emily Rothman isn't "frankly getting it wrong", it's you who did. She doesn't reference Shor and Golriz in that point but Zhou and Paul, who are also referenced in Shor and Golriz too but you gladly choose to ignore and not add to the article. You also removed a source for simply being 19 years old, while keeping one that is 22 years old that what, fit your viewpoint instead? You grandly remove sources for not being enough thorough with their research and evidence, but freely add ones with slimmer studies, because they what, fit your viewpoint? And regarding Shot and Golriz, they fully admit they looked at Japanese pornography with full Japanese casts made for Japanese audience. How is this related to Asian fetish? Do Japanese men have an Asian fetish? Or, is this just to force your viewpoint? Of course, you forced it to the lede too. KSDerek (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we can have a reasoned discussion about this. Please tone down your accusations. What I write is reflective of what the sources say.
  • On Rothman: She references both Shor & Golriz for the statistics, and Zhou & Paul for the violence study. She incorrectly assumes that Shor & Golriz is a representative sample of Pornhub, which it is not. You can read Shor & Golriz to verify this. You're right that their sample contained a significant number Japanese productions, which they also note in their study. They also state that these videos had similar amounts of violence compared to Western-produced videos with Asian women, so it doesn't change their finding. As well, Pornhub's audience is equally relevant as its content producers.
  • I kept Zhou & Paul in this article and there's nothing wrong with their research.
  • Which source did I remove for being 19 years old?
ShinyAlbatross (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Also, if you're going to criticize things I added, be more specific so that we can discuss them. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I think we can have a reasoned discussion after you add the sources back. I mean I am at a bit of a loss at what to do here. I want to show a good will, and I don't want to revert to the stable state, but you removed so many sources that it would look like I am messing the page up if I started adding them one by one back. What else can I do? I also have no idea what you're talking about with the Rothman statistics and violence study differentiation. On page 63 in the middle paragraph there is no Shor and Golriz, only Zhou and Paul. It literally begins with "Zhou and Paul randomly sampled..." PornHub isn't even mentioned in that paragraph. Shor and Golriz also do not mention that there was similar amounts, they specifically point out how much more there is in Japanese. I am bewildered at what you are writing, because it's the exact opposite of what's written. And you fully just removed the Hyphen magazine and other sources. And that was simply about trans women in pornography, so I don't understand why you removed it either. Are you fully comprehending everything? KSDerek (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Both Zhou & Paul and Shor & Golriz were studies on aggression, not overall demographic analyses.
From Rothman:
Exceptions include two content reviews from the 1990s,43 and one recent content analysis by Zhou and Paul (2016) on videos taken from the “Asian women” category of Xvideos.com.64 In addition, some basic informa- tion about the race of performers is available. In their analysis of 172 Pornhub videos uploaded between 2000 and 2016, Shor and Golriz found that ap- proximately 55% of pornography featured a white man, 30% featured a Black man, 10% featured an Asian man, and only 5% featured a Latino man. Asian women were comparatively overrepresented. Approximately 37% of pornog- raphy videos that they analyzed featured white women, 28% Black women, 16% Latina women, 1% Middle Eastern women, and 17% Asian women.51 For comparison purposes, according to the 2018 American Community Survey, the population of the United States is 72% white, 18% Hispanic or Latino, 13% Black or African American, and 5% Asian—so Black and Asian men and women appear to be overrepresented as pornography performers.
The demographic statistics are from Shor & Golriz.
Zhou and Paul randomly sampled 3,053 pornography videos from Xvideos.com and employed 27 undergraduate students in the coding of the videos in 2013. They found that Asian women were depicted differently than women of other races in pornography, were treated less aggressively, were less objectified, but also had lower agency in sexual activities.64
You're referring to this? I kept this in the article.
Also, Shor & Golriz:
Furthermore, this finding can- not be attributed to differing norms in various porn industries, as Asian female performers were likely to suffer from aggression in both Japanese- and Western-produced videos (in fact, even slightly more so in the latter).
Which is exactly what I said.
I can add Hyphen Magazine and trans pornography back in if you insist. I removed it because best-selling DVDs from 19 years ago seem a little distant (and not as good a source as I'd like), but I don't have a strong objection. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Shor and Golriz specifically write "videos featuring Asian men were significantly more likely to portray male aggression" and "all of these videos were products of the Japanese adult entertainment industry, which has unique characteristics that distinguish it from Western pornography. This industry includes notable and popular genres that often portray women as victims and men as molesters and abusers". I did not notice that that short sentence you picked up, and I have no idea what they base it upon because it disagrees with everything they have written besides that, but just before that sentence I noticed they write "This finding is especially counterintuitive with respect to Asian female performers, as they seem to stand in contrast with both previous literature about the most common media images of Asian women (Hagedron, 1997; Nakamatsu, 2005; Uchida 1998) and the recent study by Zhou and Paul (2016)". They even write that their findings disagree with general findings, yet you somehow managed to force it to be the general findings in the lede. There is obviously no consensus in literature yet you synthed there to be one in the lede. And I was talking about including the Rothman source, which is secondary source and thus preferred on Misplaced Pages over primary. KSDerek (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Everything they wrote is logically consistent. It depends if you are looking at Asian men or Asian women. This article's focus is Asian women.
Here's how I understand it:
1. There are many videos with white men, and a percentage (say 10% for simplicity's sake) contain Asian women.
2. Other than Japanese productions, there are not very many videos with Asian men. Say 1%, also for simplicity's sake.
3. There are Japanese productions that are 100% Asian men with Asian women. Say that there are the same number of these videos as there are Western productions featuring White men with Asian women.
4. Both the Japanese productions and the Western productions with Asian women have a high proportion of violent content, compared to videos without Asian women.
If these 4 things are all true, then we would truthfully say:
1. Videos featuring Asian men were significantly more likely to portray male aggression (most of those were Japanese productions) compared to White men.
2. Videos featuring Asian women were significantly more like likely to have violent content.
3. Excluding Japanese productions doesn't change things for point #2, because the Western videos with Asian women contain just as much violence (and apparently slightly more)
4. Videos with a White man and a non-Asian woman have comparatively lower rates of violence.
There's a number of possible explanations why their results differ from Zhou & Paul, not the least of which is just that it's a different website, but all we can do in this article is present both.
So we have Zhou & Paul, Shor & Golriz, and Gossett & Byrne. I believe Gossett & Byrne alone is enough to describe the results as troubling. If it was just Zhou and Shor together, you would probably say the data are inconclusive, but the different study focus in Gossett definitely points to something. Neither Zhou or Shor refutes the finding in Gossett.
I have no issue citing the Rothman text, as long as a note is included that the demographics provided are erroneous. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
To begin with Shor and Golriz specify looking at a category called "Asian/Japanese" and with just 35 (total 172) videos compared to Zhou and Paul who looked at 3053 videos. They also specifically have a table of the pairings so you don't need to guess. We can see that when there is an Asian woman, the odds of there being aggression is lower than when there is an Asian man, thus disproving your theory, because it is decreased by the content with non-Asian men having lower rate of it. And you keep pointing out the 19 year old age of the Hyphen source, but have no trouble touting the 22 year old Gossett, which again makes no differentiation between the sourcing of the content and doesn't mention the word "fetish" even once. None of this is related to Asian fetish. They all seemingly looked at Japanese pornography made for Japanese. No conclusions about Asian fetish can be made from that. KSDerek (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I mean, I think you're well into performing your own analysis with this comment. If you're going to disagree with the authors then you should have irrefutable evidence.
Table 4
Aggression (visual)
White man with Asian woman: 9.01
Asian man with Asian woman: 6.45
You keep talking like Shor and Zhou can't both be right. They can both be right. They were studies on two different websites using two different methods. Zhou's study has more precision because of the larger sample, sure, but that doesn't amplify the finding.
"Keep pointing out"? I said I have no objections to adding Hyphen back in.
I seriously think you should take a break and cool down. I'm making completely well-reasoned points and you're just coming back again and again with misgivings about the study. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Well cherrypicked column from the table. Here's the rest.
Title suggesting aggression
White man with Asian woman: 1.04
Asian man with Asian woman: 2.76
% of video showing aggression (OLS)
White man with Asian woman: 6.73
Asian man with Asian woman: 28.75
Aggression (nonconsensual)
White man with Asian woman: 1.53
Asian man with Asian woman: 2.53
You have not proven any of your claims. Please stop getting into personalities and talking about me, and rather talk of how your mass removal of sources makes sense. KSDerek (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I didn't cherry-pick anything, the authors picked that for their discussion. They probably did that because both those numbers reached statistical significance, whereas with the numbers you listed, only the 28.75 was statistically significant.
In general, though, I don't have to prove anything. The study says this, and that's what the article goes with.
I have several thousand words above explaining my rationale for various changes. If you have an issue with any removals, tell me specifically which ones. However, I'm less and less willing to deal with you the more you try to argue against published research here. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
You did cherrypick, and so did the authors. You talked of Rothman being unreliable, but Shor and Gorliz are with their tiny number of videos and cherrypicked focus points compared to Zhou and Paul. Even Shor and Gorliz said the literature generally disagrees with their findings. What do you say about that? And as already shown, your offered "rationale" is wholly wrong. You completely misread Rothman and apparently "accidentally" cut out sources from the article that you say you're going to return but don't. And now you're say you're not willing to deal with me anymore? Well what point is there for me to pinpoint this and that if you're not even responding then? KSDerek (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like you don't like this study. That's really too bad, but I think I'm done trying to help you understand it. Like I said, if you have further objections past Rothman and Hyphen, I'm all ears. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
For one, you removed the large starting paragraph with sources from the interracial marriages section. Your reasoning was that it wasn't related to the Asian fetish and it wasn't sourced well enough (I don't see anything wrong with the sources for the simple numbers in the prose). Now, I don't fully disagree with idea of it not being related, but how is the whole pornography section related then? Or the sex tourism section? Should we remove them as well? Like pointed out, the sources usually don't even mention "fetish". KSDerek (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Of marriage stats, only Washington Post was accurate, but it's from 1998 and frankly, it's not that interesting. Imbalanced marriage rates could equally be explained by White women discriminating against Asian men (which is pretty well-documented)
Marriage vs porn and sex tourism, hmm! I can definitely think of some reasons why those things are different. Which of those allow you to filter for "Asian" up front? ShinyAlbatross (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
How are those sources incorrect? There was one dead source you could have simply used web archive to get the archival link for. What discrimination of Asian men by White women? And what filtering? KSDerek (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
So many questions! I have explained my findings on the sources above. How about you make a positive case for why you think that interracial marriage is relevant? ShinyAlbatross (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Not really for these matters? And concerning that, like I wrote, I'm not arguing everything is relevant, I'm asking why according to you some aren't and some are even if they don't mention "fetish" once. KSDerek (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
1. If you're serious about discussing these issues, don't turn it into a revert war.
2. Okay, so if you agree it's not relevant, the source quality doesn't matter.
3. It seems like you're in need of a definition of what Asian fetish means, exactly. Zheng's 2016 paper is probably the best source you will get on this, and can be supplemented by Zheng's chapter in the 2022 Routledge text titled "Sex, Marriage, and Race". ShinyAlbatross (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
It's not a revert war as three editors have reverted you now, that's just undoing vandalism. You offer nothing but point to Zheng? Whose text you have massively removed from the article? There's no logic in that argument. KSDerek (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • One editor other than yourself did a revert (the IP users are the same) of one section only. We discussed, I sorted out their misconceptions, and did a new edit incorporating new information.
  • I kept all of Zheng. In fact, I kept most of the same sources.
ShinyAlbatross (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
These are the diffs: ,
One can understand why you'd ignore the IP because you have apparently now listed a sock puppet investigation against me, accusing me of being the IP editor? You completely missed out on there having been two IP editors of this article and only focused on the other, even combing through history only picking up their edits. It's bizarre that you'd even start an investigation listing against past IP edits.
And no, you didn't keep most of Zheng, and well keeping "most" of the old sources is surely highly gracious of you...
By this point I have to say you have clearly zero intent at coming to any sort of agreement or compromise, and are here only to harass and edit fight. KSDerek (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
So, it seems like he's not responding anymore and the investigation was simply closed. I'm asking others, like the IP editor who has frequented this article or others like User:A Rainbow Footing It, do you support or don't support reverting the mass removal of sources etc. by this editor? KSDerek (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I proposed a solution to this disagreement on your talk page, which you saw.
It's required to discuss here if you disagree with me. Asking User:A Rainbow Footing It to form a brigade against me here is not allowed. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
It's called a consensus... Before responding here I responded on the talk page, telling you to respond to my reply here. KSDerek (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Recruiting users who are likely to support your view is not allowed. You can only request input from impartial users.
I'll say once that I'm expecting this conversation to be WP:CIVIL.
What would you like me to respond to? The three reverts?
First one – I discussed the matter. Whoever those IP users were, they aren't coming back. I made a fresh edit after a week of no response.
Second one - I agree with that revert (and it was on one edit only). Makes sense to me.
Third one was you and you haven't discussed the specifics of what you find objectionable. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
If the users in question are the only ones participating then there isn't much choice. I don't know what has happened at this article before my time. And I understood the SPI clerk to simply mean the IPs are dynamic thus he doesn't expect the same IPs to continue editing, not that the editor will stop. And should I repeat myself? You didn't keep most of Zheng, and you say you kept "most" of the old sources which doesn't sound very constructive. You haven't responded to the numerous questions about how Shor and Golriz say the general literature has differed with their findings, which is contrary to the line you keep pushing to the lede. KSDerek (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
A Rainbow Footing It has never contributed to this page, apparently.
Before my edits, Zheng was cited heavily in the "Psychological effects" section, once in "Research on racial preferences", twice in the lede, using two sources. After my edits, Zheng is cited heavily in the "Psychological effects" section, once in "Research on racial preferences", once in the lede, using two sources. So overall, I removed one citation in the lede, because it was more citing Zheng citing Lewis (2012).
Shor & Golriz called their findings "counterintuitive", because it was in contrast to studies on (non-pornographic) media images, and found the opposite trend as Zhou & Paul. In terms of wide content analyses, there's only Zhou & Paul and Shor & Golriz. There's no reason both of these studies can't be true. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Zheng (2016) was cited 12 times before, now just 8. Not that the citation count is even the actual text I'm talking about. And they write "in contrast to previous literature". And they mention pornography too, not just non-pornographic. Why do you lie so much constantly? KSDerek (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but you can remove the personal attack or this conversation is not going to continue. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, what else would you call that? How can you have a conversation when the other person simply makes up things? You make more synth than even the IP editor from before. And it's you who needlessly just started an SPI against me and didn't even apologise for it. KSDerek (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I understand your offence at the SPI, so I'm sorry that I falsely accused you. Try to see it from my perspective when I saw how new your account is and the circumstances here.
Can we continue with the discussion? ShinyAlbatross (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
And to fit their whims they just stop responding, having been proven wrong but wikilawyering on some red herring slight. I added many of their additions back in. I didn't mass revert. What they just do is mass remove sources, mass revert everything and then wikilawyer about the other side edit warring. KSDerek (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I noticed you had added some other sources. Your "Racial Violence against Asian Americans" doesn't mention fetish even once. After that for the violence statement in the lede you have added a bunch of non-scientific pop culture articles like from Teen Vogue. KSDerek (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I would like this discussion to be productive. I really would.
Your comments here, here, and especially here are rude and unhelpful. If a productive discussion is to take place, it needs to be respectful. I'm more than open to discussions about improving the article but incivility toward me is is really preventing that. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I mean, you just posted "Can we continue with the discussion?" after all the replies (that much is obvious because it would block you from posting if there is an edit conflict). Now that I brought up very simple points, you simply suddenly decide to not to respond. Again, for the how manieth time. KSDerek (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
@KSDerek: sorry for taking so long to respond. I do support the mass reversion of the recent changes hy ShinyAlbatross, except where consensus was already achieved where they were helpful. The biggest problem here is their own enormous deletion of sourced content (which they have also done elsewhere...), which again does not appear to be based on any real reasoning. The isssue is not the addition of new content to the article, but their vast deletion of content. Meaning their additions are perfectly fine to add where they are reliably sourced and accurate. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
@A Rainbow Footing It I suggest you stay out of this discussion, given previous history, as you have ostensibly never edited this page before and entering at this point could be seen as WP:CANVASS. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I am a lurker on this page. I do not believe that telling User:A Rainbow Footing It to stay out of this discussion is well founded. There seems to be consensus in their favor, it seems you are the only one in disagreement.
I would like to see my name to the hat of users in agreement with KSDerek and User:A Rainbow Footing It, they are both in the right on this one. Upon the rein of a wimpling wing (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Changes on Sep 30 - notes

Interview with porn performers

Received a "failed verification" note on the comment on anti-Asian violence. See these quotes from the article:

The industry has not exactly been sensitive or responsive to these discussions. Shortly after the Atlanta shootings...

Kush was also taken aback when a distribution company tagged her in a tweet promoting a scene titled “Asian Massage Invasion” shortly after the attacks. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You should add your signatures to each section if you want responses in each. So for this, there is nothing about anti-Asian violence, only a mention about the same incident you base everything on, and even that is just barely tied to one person through a tweet, so nothing like in the prose where you make it seem like they all talk about it in detail. It's very synth-like prose to make them say what you want them to say. KSDerek (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
There's "nothing about anti-Asian violence" in this source? Huh?? "just barely tied to one person through a tweet"?
All I can say is, you should read the article again if you truly believe this. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
That is a non-answer. You yourself pointed out the quotes you think mention it, but obviously don't? KSDerek (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Not sure what to tell you – I don't even know what you're claiming here. The quotes (and the article) clearly support the statement. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
They don't even mention violence. The first one has the author speaking, and none of the people you are claiming as the voices of it. Do you not see how there is no logical connection here? The second one has ONE of the people mention a tag of a tweet of scene with a title about Asian massages some time after a shooting at an Asian massage establishment. That is about sensitivity of a scene to a recent tragedy at a similar establishment, what connection is there to your claim? All you have is a vague original research interpretation and even then it's just one person and their reaction to a Twitter tag, not even them saying anything. KSDerek (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure you've even read the article now – if the question is "Do the interviewees criticize the industry in its response to anti-Asian violence?" the answer is obviously "yes". ShinyAlbatross (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
But there was no such question? How is that not original research, trying to read between the lines? Remember what the other IP editor did before? They added their own interpretations of what apparently the sources intended. Both you and I removed those "interpretations" as they weren't per source. KSDerek (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Shor & Golriz, Zhou & Paul

There is nothing wrong with either of these studies and both should be included. One editor takes issue with Shor & Golriz, saying that the sample size was much smaller. However, the field of statistics tells us when a finding is significant, and (indirectly) whether our sample was too small to determine anything. Different thresholds exist, but p < 0.05 is generally the threshold of significance in most fields. Shor & Golriz report on their findings which reach that level of significance.

Differences in their findings are far more likely to be the result of different methodologies — and it's easy to spot the ways in which they are different. For example:

  • They were conducted on different websites
  • Shor & Golriz included "forceful penetration" as a criterion, and Zhou & Paul did not, perhaps because of coding challenges
  • Shor & Golriz used a convenience sampling method focusing on popular videos, Zhou & Paul went to great lengths to try to sample random videos. Random videos are ideal for studying what is posted on the website, but popular videos are better for studying what people are actually watching on the website. Neither is superior - it depends on the question you are trying to answer.

I wouldn't go so far as to discuss these points in the article, because I think that's not Misplaced Pages's job. But I'm offering a plausible explanation for why the results were in opposite directions and that they do not directly contradict each other.

By placing undue emphasis on the sample size, I think this could be seen as non-neutral presentation of the research. The article should just present both neutrally.

Besides that, saying Asian women are more/less likely to be subjects to violence compared to White women does not make violence unconcerning. All violence is concerning, period, and researchers try to understand the reasons for violence. Those reasons might plausibly be rooted in racial stereotypes. Gender+racial motivations for violence are worth discussion (especially when high-quality sources discuss it) regardless of whether that violence is more or less than a different group. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing about fetish in these sources as mentioned, which is what has been mentioned numerous times. And the other problems brought up weren't touched upon at all, that they include Japanese pornography ie certainly not fetish pornography and that secondary sources should be preferred. You had criticized and removed a different source apparently just for being 19 years old but have no issue with the older 2002 source based on just 56 images found on the internet? The sources were presented with just the facts but you keep wanting to add your prose. So, should the prose be removed? KSDerek (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
It's not necessary that every source directly say the word "fetish" if it's a related issue and relevance to the topic has been established elsewhere.
We've been on this topic before. Shor & Golriz: "Furthermore, this finding cannot be attributed to differing norms in various porn industries, as Asian female performers were likely to suffer from aggression in both Japanese- and Western-produced videos (in fact, even slightly more so in the latter)."
Rothman: again, we've been here before, and I'm not repeating all of what was said. Rothman is a reliable source except for the description of Shor & Golriz. Rothman also didn't say what you wrote she did.
Source removed for being 19 years old: I said you could add it back (although I think the information added was trivial). Again, we've been here before.
Gossett and Byrne is an older study, but is still relevant and talked about in much newer review articles like Forbes, Yang & Lim. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
It's necessary that they touch upon the topic... Pretty pointless otherwise. And the only way relevance has been established is because you push the pornography topic from other sources now. And as mentioned, Shor and Golriz specified how the general literature had disagreed with their findings, and in that line they also cherry-picked the only category of aggression out of many where it was that way, and then you cherry-pick that line out of all, like a long line of cherry-picking to get a result, very scientific. I pointed out how Rothman doesn't mention Shor and Golriz for the part she is quoted, unlike what you stated. You oppose Rothman's use for some matter Rothman isn't even used for? So, you keep removing Rothman for not being up to your standards as a source, but not Shor and Golriz, who are very cherry-picking in their interpretations and methods? And you have never added the 19 year old back even though you have talked about it many times. Gossett and Byrne is another bizarre source. They looked at 56 images in 2002. That is a bizarre sampling even in 2002. Is this source up to your standards even though it clearly seems very shoddy? KSDerek (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Shor and Golriz say their study "seem to stand in contrast" with previous studies, and then provided some theories as to why
  • It's not for you to say whether a study is good or bad. Researchers obtain years of education and go through peer review to try to ensure their study is good. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, it only has to come from a reliable source.
  • Rothman misinterpreted Shor & Golriz as a content demographics study, which it is not
  • "Rothman deems that the findings of the depictions of Asian women in pornography aren't consistent" is not supported by what Rothman writes
  • Other sections of Rothman's text are fine
We've had this discussion before. Please go back and re-read previous threads if you have more questions. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

And you have never added the 19 year old back even though you have talked about it many times.

Please, go ahead. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
For the first point, exactly, and pushing only one side to the lede is unbalanced. And like you write, it's not for you to decide whether a study is bad, so why do you keep removing Rothman? Who decided that? And you claim you found some unrelated mistake in Rothman to decide it's bad? That portion isn't even what it's used for? Rothman is most of all secondary source, which is preferred. And Rothman quotes Zhou and Paul about the statement on Asian pornography, and writes that race based pornography content analyses are rare and that "so few content analyses have been conducted to answer questions about how depictions of people by race may be evolving over time, and about racism and pornography". It's not focusing on just Asian in that part, so it could be changed to "findings of the depictions of Asian women and race in pornography aren't consistent or comprehensive" or something to that effect. So, which sections by Rothman are fine? We have had this discussion but you haven't been willing to talk much before. And how would you be willing to accept old sources back? I also noticed that in the research section the 1995 study was removed, the 2020 study was removed and key information about the 2013 Lin study was removed. Your explanations for the removals are very sparse, like apparently your reason for removing the 1995 source is again because you simply deem it not reliable enough on your own accord. For the how manieth source. The type of reasoning you use for removing the 1995 reference would very well apply to removing Gossett and Byrne too, and it's at the heart of your claims. KSDerek (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
  • In Rothman's case, it's simply a mistake, the way a typo is a mistake. It's not that I'm saying the evidence is insufficient or that Rothman is stretching the logic. In those cases, it's inappropriate for a Misplaced Pages editor to judge. WP:WSAW
  • As I said above: "saying Asian women are more/less likely to be subjects to violence compared to White women does not make violence unconcerning. All violence is concerning, period, and researchers try to understand the reasons for violence. Those reasons might plausibly be rooted in racial stereotypes. Gender+racial motivations for violence are worth discussion (especially when high-quality sources discuss it) regardless of whether that violence is more or less than a different group"
  • I'm not sure what those other studies have to do with this. They don't; and my reasoning was solid for any changes I made and I wrote down everything. And that's not the reason I removed Cunningham (1995).
ShinyAlbatross (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter what it is in Rothman's case, because that portion you focus on isn't even used in the article. If you say it's wrong about an unused matter, why does that matter? Considering Woan wasn't reliable on something that it is used for, do I look for the other times it's unreliable too, on matters not related to our topic? And in your second point you write "regardless of whether" "more or less", yet you only seem to push one view in the lede, why is that? You seem to acknowledge there being a discussion, a disagreement, two views, yet why does only one view get allowed in the lede? And I pointed out the other studies you cut, because you cut them for reasons one could also apply to Gossett and Byrne and its strange evidence of 56 images, which was odd a long time ago too, considering that wasn't there text and a reference about violence in pornography decreasing over time at the page for Pornography? If we apply that logic, is this study simply out of date? Also, when I was just reading on some guidelines, I was reminded that Woan specifies their article being from a standpoint of critical race theory and feminist jurisprudence. The Misplaced Pages lede for that theory holds that "Academic critics of CRT argue it is based on storytelling instead of evidence and reason, rejects truth and merit, and undervalues liberalism." I'm not here to argue about that, but clearly it is a controversial theory, and I think we can both agree on categorizing the article's standpoint as a radical viewpoint, can we not? KSDerek (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Miller & McBain, Rothman

Rothman doesn't say the thing it says she did. I think Rothman should be an excellent source, except for the obvious way Shor & Golriz is misinterpreted (see my previous comments on Rothman). Rothman's text should not be used to describe Shor & Golriz.

Miller & McBain is fine, but doesn't add any new information. The original wording of "Studies of more general pornography have shown mixed results" is fine, but I'll keep Miller & McBain since it's a secondary source. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why you hate including Rothman so much and keep removing it. Earlier, I pointed out how you misread Rothman completely. It's completely Misplaced Pages recommended style of secondary source commentary on those studies and in a respectable textbook on the topic. KSDerek (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
You said I misread Rothman completely, but I don't know your reason, and I don't believe I did. Again, we had this conversation already. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Like pointed out above, you claim Rothman was used for something it wasn't. KSDerek (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

General wordsmithing

I don't see any good reasons to change these. For example, changing "Asian women report a number of harms" to "There may be a number of harms" with the reason given that Asian fetish is not specific to Asian women. Sure, but the sources talk about Asian women specifically, which is true of 99% of this article. Increasingly I think this article should just cover heterosexual, male -> female Asian fetish in the United States since that's what the vast majority of writing is about, reserving a section for alternative framings.ShinyAlbatross (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Like I mentioned, you yourself had edited the article to be about Asian men facing it too, but now you only want to focus on Asian women when it comes to the negatives? And even the original wording would ask for a "who?" template because who is the text talking about? That language is not at all Misplaced Pages style. KSDerek (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
In principle, "Asian fetish" is agnostic to sexual orientation and gender. But as a social phenomenon which is defined and discussed in popular and academic sources, the vast majority focus exclusively on heterosexual American men and Asian women.
When the source is doing this, the article should do this. Plain and simple. To frame it from the opposite direction, turning it into the generalized statement "There may be a number of harms" is not properly supported because there is no source saying this for gay/straight Asian men or gay Asian women. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
You'd have to add a source for that claim. Because for now we have a source talking about it applying to men too and you even added text to that effect. If there is a source that only looks at women's issues, without it specifying that the fetish only concerns women, well, you can't claim it does. What alternative do you offer to that line then? KSDerek (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Turning it into the generalized statement "There may be a number of harms" is not properly supported because there is no source saying this for gay/straight Asian men or gay Asian women ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
So, what is supported by sources then? Definitely not your "Asian women report". Again, that would require "who?" template. Who are you talking about? In the body you have "Targets of Asian fetish report". Why is it suddenly Asian women in the lede? Why did you change it for the lede? So, I assume you will be happy if I change it to 100% your text with "Targets of Asian fetish report"? Or not? You don't want your own text from the body to be used in the lede to point at that text in the body? KSDerek (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources relating to connection to violence

I've added 3 secondary, academic sources to support these claims: Forbes, Zheng, and Woan. One should really be enough. If there is an opposing voice here, find it in a reliable source and add it to the article. But so far, I haven't found any source that says there is no link between Asian fetish and anti-Asian violence.ShinyAlbatross (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Not that you added the other two, but those mentions are notably based on the 2002 study of the 56 pornography images which they reference. That is used by all except Zheng who then only very briefly mentions the matter with Woan as a source, so in the end it's based on it too. These sources predate the other studies. And the focus is not on the fetish but pornography. As we see in the earlier mentioned secondary sources, like Rothman which you keep removing for whatever reason, they say it's mixed whether that pornography is linked to violence, so yes, it's contrary, so it's ridiculous to claim in the lede based on the few mentions and ignore other sources. You already had it in the body, but try to force it in the lede even though it's a controversial view. And you added the Harvard Law back with a quote about the WW2 internments and 1992 Los Angeles riots? Are you mistaking this article for just general racism article? It clearly doesn't belong. KSDerek (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Being based on one incident isn't a strike against notability — single incidents can be extremely important historical events.
But you're also wrong about that. Forbes et al cite 3 studies in addition to the Atlanta spa shooting. Zheng cites 5 more (including Woan). Woan (2008) mentions many specific incidents:
  • An infamous issue of Penthouse featuring Asian women being bound and tortured, some ambiguously shown as potentially even dead, which inspired a nation-wide anti-pornography protest.
  • Two months after this issue, the incident of an eight-year-old Chinese girl being raped and lynched
  • The 2005 case of Princeton University student Michael Lohman going around cutting Asian women's hair off and pouring his urine and semen into their drinks over 50 times,
  • The 2001 case of David Dailey and Eddie Ball abducting and raping two Japanese schoolgirls
  • The 2002 case of Richard Borelli Anderson murdering Lili Wang at North Carolina State University
... and the heading of this section in Woan's text is "Case of the Asian Fetish Syndrome".
I do think that overall, content analyses of pornography are rather thin and aging, and pornography has changed so much in the last 20 years. But there is no contrary or superceding evidence against Gossett & Byrne, and it gets a mention in Forbes et al., a high-quality secondary source published just last year. I'm completely open to an opposing viewpoint here, it only needs to be found in a reliable source.
Anyway, you said I ignored other sources. Which sources would those be? ShinyAlbatross (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
It is when it's not talked about afterwards. Also, your interpretation of sources is very liberal again. The two main issues you bring up for Woan are both in one short sentence in a footnote, attributing it to "Helen Zia". But Woan is seemingly misreading the author, it's not Helen Zia but Sumi K. Cho. Helen Zia is the author for another work in the anthology. So, like earlier with Rothman, should this be immediately disqualified for Woan not even being able to get such simple things correct? Or does the cherry-picking of sources happen again? It's also hard to understand what evidence Woan has of these incidents being related to any fetish when there is seemingly none. I'd also be interested in where are these other sources you mention for Forbes, because Forbes talks of many things in that paragraph like sex trafficking, so which sources are used for the violence claim? And Gossett and Byrne were contrary to Zhou and Paul. And like mentioned, Gossett and Byrne is a very shoddy study based on 56 images in 2002 which was odd even in 2002. The most comprehensive study done on the matter by far is Zhou and Paul. The other sources are Rothman, which you keep removing, and Miller and McBain. KSDerek (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Not sure where you're getting that from, this description clearly lists Zia as the author of the chapter.
If you want a contrasting viewpoint, please find it in a reliable source. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
You are right about Zia being the author, as the listing I had had Zia on the wrong line, but now when I read the source, what Woan attributes to Zia about "sexual stereotyped pornography and actual violence against Asian women" isn't there at all. Zia almost doesn't even mention pornography after the lead paragraph, where it's one of the things tied to the intersection of what makes up the "hate rape" they describe. Absolutely nothing about sexual stereotypes in pornography? Closest to that is in a sentence about a black woman: "Investigators could have raised issues of those white men's attitudes towards the victim as a black woman, found out whether hate speech of race-specific pornography was present, investigated the overall racial climate on campus, and brought all of the silenced aspects of the incident to the public eye." That was the closest it got, which isn't anywhere close. And they write that they looked into "hate rape" killings of Asian Americans, but could only find male victims. They spent effort to find a case like that young girl, and even then the connection is very slim, no description of the attacker and just loose timing of a murder in all of the United States. But the overall statement was that it's mostly male victims. We talked about this earlier too, you wanted sources that claim this about men being the target, and now you have it already. And like I wrote, the most comprehensive study done on the matter by far is Zhou and Paul, which is contrary to the pornography claims which are the basis in your sources using Gossett and Byrne's 56 images from 2002 as their evidence. KSDerek (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
It will take a bit of time for me to source the Zia text. I doubt what you're saying is the full picture.
Nonetheless, I said at the top that one high-quality secondary source is plenty for this. You're now digging into the sources of sources, which I can't see being fruitful unless each and every one of them somehow contains a serious obvious error. Dozens of authors and journals simply don't make "mistakes" like these.
Gossett & Byrne and Zhou & Paul are two completely different studies. Zhou & Paul definitely doesn't cancel out Gossett & Byrne, or Shor & Golriz for that matter. High quality secondary sources agree. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Alright, found it.
Contains 5 examples of violence against Asian women. Zia's point was that these incidents are rarely investigated as hate crimes, even when there is ample reason for suspicion.
If you're looking for a connection between pornography and violence, there's another essay in the same anthology, page 518. "Using Pornography".
Or, I mean, just look at Gossett & Byrne, which is what Woan does. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
But you have done exactly what I did. Before, you looked at sources of sources and removed references based on that. You claimed that a source in a source was just a blog post. Well, I can't find that Mason 2016 anymore. Again, you are allowed to do all kinds of things, yet deny them from me. And I also noticed that the study by Gossett and Byrne isn't even based on 56 images from 2002, but from 1999, so by this point 26 years old. They also qualified that any site which had text "rape" or "forced" to be of rape porn, so anything on one of the sites they listed (none of which work anymore): "rape.bizarre.nu.html" seemingly qualified as rape porn according to them. Whereas Zhou and Paul looked at a large number of recent videos on a major website, and actually qualified the behavior seen in the videos according to different metrics. And high quality secondary sources like Miller and McBain or Rothman, which disagree with the one-sided interpretation? And you found Zia, and wrote nothing about pornography in it, which is what it is used for in Woan, so you yourself proved Woan is reading sources in a very strange fashion. And Gossett and Byrne, again, hardly function to support their own findings with the odd small bit of evidence they quickly looked up, let alone the freeform interpretations based on it. KSDerek (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Tourism section

Regarding the "not relevant" tagging of this section, I partially agree that some claims in this section are somewhat tangential and not directly connected to the article topic. Western men paying for sexual services in Asia alone isn't enough to claim "fetish", since there are a number of different possible motivations, and it's very difficult to identify/quantify each one.

However, Abramson & Pinkerton do make direct mention of fetish:

Tourism to Asia is organized within the political economy of global relations and derives its market value from the general commodification of the “Orient” as well as the commodification of leisure and pleasure. Current constructions of “Asia” are successors to the Orient of nineteenth-century imperialism, travelers’ tales, early anthropology, and their associated projects, all resulting in the collapse of the exotic and erotic to create a fetishized, imagined Other with little attention to empirical veracity (Said, 1978; Kabbani, 1986; Marcus, 1992).

Said, and others following his lead, have argued that current constructions of “Asia” are successors to the fetishized, largely mythic, geographically proximate, and sometimes faithless “Orient” of the nineteenth century (Said, 1978; Kabbani, 1986; Cocks, 1989; Marcus, 1992; Suleri, 1992), such that the popular representations of Asia in general, and countries such as Thailand in particular, are a sentimental mix of the erotic and exotic.

This section could be pared down and linked to Sex tourism as a "see also". ShinyAlbatross (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If there is one source that mentions "fetishized" in passing in two parts, and seemingly just talking of the image of the countries, it's not much to go on? KSDerek (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm all for improvement of this section. I don't think it should be eliminated, since sex tourism is mentioned in numerous sources as well (e.g. Woan, since I was just looking at it). I'm also cognizant this article is already too long and probably a paragraph or two is enough. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Woan has been shown to be fairly unreliable in their interpretations, interpreting everything to be fetish without any evidence, and like shown they also get simple things you quote them for wrong. KSDerek (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
See above – Woan is fine. There's opinion involved, but it's well-researched and published. If you want to present a different opinion, find it in a reliable source. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
We established above that Woan is fairly liberally quoting the sources, coming up with things that weren't really said in them. And like I wrote, the most comprehensive study done on the matter by far is Zhou and Paul, which is contrary to the pornography claims which are the basis in your sources using Gossett and Byrne's 56 images from 2002 as their evidence. And we have secondary sources Miller and McBain and Rothman. Like let's get to the root of your sources. All the evidence all your sources base their claims on are the Gossett and Byrnett 2002 study on 56 images, which was strange even in 2002. Then you have Shor and Golriz, which quoting you "Shor and Golriz say their study "seem to stand in contrast" with previous studies, and then provided some theories as to why" and talk about how Japanese pornography that their study heavily bases itself on is more aggressive, but in one sentence they cherry-picked one category of aggression where it was the opposite, and you also cherry-picked that sentence out of all the text. Are these two the basis of your actual evidence besides just claims? Considering we also have evidence in contrast like Zhou and Paul, and Miller and McBain finding the general results inconclusive. There is no way you can just push one side of the interpretation in the lede. KSDerek (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Also, you had accused of canvassing before, but I just happened to come by canvassing to this article on a non-Misplaced Pages website. The person seemed interested in similar things to you, but in good faith I assume it's not you? KSDerek (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
No idea what you're referring to. Post the link - I have nothing to hide. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
If it's not you, then it's probably not ok to share. Also, I added a note that you also removed in your rush to just revert. You didn't respond to it at all either. KSDerek (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
If you want me to respond to something, post it here on the talk page. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Let me get this straight. You are allowed to leave the notes in the source. But I am not, according to you. You will simply revert me adding notes, and leave your own in. This is so unconstructive. KSDerek (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Leave all the comments you want – but if you want me to see and reply to them, put them here. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
So, I assume I am allowed to use notes now? Also, concerning the third dispute noticeboard listing you have made of me now, with the following text: "He has insulted me, made frivolous arguments, refused to get the point, is pushing a POV, and at this point is just wasting as much of my time as possible." If you state that I insulted you by making a negative statement about the way you argue some weeks ago, what would you call all of that then? Do you not see it's not only repeats that kind of behavior multiple times, but that noticeboard posts are also supposed to be neutral? Although I think I pointed that second part out already. KSDerek (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Categories: