Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 12

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? Bethereds 20:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

A Discussion of Two Problems with the Wikipedia Article "Asian Fetish"
Some Problems with the Wikipedia Article Entitled "Asian Fetish"

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

PROBLEM 1

Semantic and Linguistic Problems

"Asian Fetish" is a colloquial, slang term, and is indeed used colloquially in modern speech. However, that does not mean it belongs in Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, it should represent something that can be empirically proven, and semantically isolated. If not, it belongs in something similar to the Urban Dictionary [ http://urbandictionary.com ], 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 Importance and Urgency

The question must be asked: Is this slang term important enough to have an article in Wikipedia? Is there in fact an urgent need for this article to exist in Wikipedia? 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 Wikipedia, 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 [Computer1200] 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

A Word about the deleted section connecting the alleged "Asian Fetish" with violence toward Asian women

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.Computer1200 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. Computer1200 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.Computer1200 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.Computer1200 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. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 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.Computer1200 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 WikiIsforLamers 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. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Which "snide" remarks are those? Perhaps you should direct this request to Computer1200.WikiIsforLamers 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.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 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.WikiIsforLamers 19:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Try assuming good faith. 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 here or here.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 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.Computer1200 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 [sic] as "Asian Fetish," is not hinged on strict classical scientific research. This is a social phenemonon [sic]. Many things cannot be shown or proven "scientfiically" [sic] 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.Computer1200 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!! WikiIsforLamers 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.Computer1200 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 Wikipedia 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 "Wikipedia relevence." This is wrong. As an encylcopedia, Wikipedia 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 WikiIsforLamers 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.Computer1200 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.

Unfreeride 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. WikiIsforLamers 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.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 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.Computer1200 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.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 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:

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.

71.175.60.251 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. WikiIsforLamers 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. Lindentree 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. Androgen receptor 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 Race and height)

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.

71.175.60.251 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. WikiIsforLamers 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. Lindentree 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. WikiIsforLamers 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.

71.175.60.251 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. Lindentree 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. WikiIsforLamers 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.) Computer1200 06:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

THIS.IS.NOT.A.FORUM. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 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.Computer1200 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. Liquidplanetsmoothie 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. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 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. Lindentree 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? WikiIsforLamers 05:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

The article Chink 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 East Asia. 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 Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians

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

71.175.60.251 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.Dark Tea 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Do we have any sources to confirm this? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at the article Asian. You will find many sources.


 * There are sources on Asian that Asian fetish only affects East Asians? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.175.60.251 (talk • contribs).


 * Wait a minute, I know some asian fetishists that are attracted to Filipinos, they look like Indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.194.240 (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 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

71.175.60.251 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. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Asian Fetish/Yellow fever typically applies to East Asians and Southeast Asians. Generally, Indians are not included --CommonSense101 18:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Asian Indians would be included in the term "Asian fetish" because they are Asian.Dark Tea 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. Padishah5000 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[3][4]


 * This is because East Asians devalue exercise. (see Race and height)


 * Lower levels of violent crime committed by East Asians[5][6]


 * Correlation does not imply causation. Testosterone level does not necessary correlate to crime level. See Genetics and crime. 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[7][8]


 * See Race and height for diet differences that make East Asians and whites different in testosterone. Also see Stereotypes of East Asians and Southeast Asians.


 * Possible differences in average penile size, which shows a strong relation to prenatal and childhood testosterone levels[9], e.g. smaller average penis sizes found among Chinese newborns[10]


 * Again, see Race and height 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[11]


 * Again, see Race and height and Stereotypes of East Asians and Southeast Asians.


 * The higher average life expectancies of women and East Asians, fewer incidences of prostate cancer and heart disease among East Asians[12][13][14](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[15]


 * 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[16]


 * Apes have less testosterone levels but look masculine. (See Stereotypes of East Asians and Southeast Asians.)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unfreeride (talk • contribs).

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 Wikipedia 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, WP:original research. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 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. Kaitenbushi 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. WikiIsforLamers 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 [Eng, DL (1994) "In the shadows of a diva: committing homosexuality in David Henry Hwang's M. Butterfly." Amerasia Journal 20(1):93-116] 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? 69.139.75.80 05:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Computer1200 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" [ http://www.modelminority.com/article1056.html — read the comments after scrolling down; you'll be shocked at the asian racist venom there. It seems racism is NOT just for white rednecks anymore. ], or controversial pop culture books like Prasso's — not sufficient at all as robust support for an article in Wikipedia. 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 [ http://urbandictionary.com ] and not as an article in Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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.OneViewHere 17:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it survived three deletion nominations. The article needs improvement, not deletion.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 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. Kaitenbushi 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.


 * Computer1200 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 love 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaitenbushi (talk • contribs) 01:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since no one has offered any explanation, I removed the paragraph. Kaitenbushi 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 User_talk:Dark_Tea), 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. Kaitenbushi 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. Lindentree 07:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's white power
This article is the epitomy of how Wikipedia is largely controlled by white men in the United States and that their world-view of what is inclusive becomes the notability standard for Wikipedia. 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. .:DavuMaya:. 08:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you know Wikipedia is run by white men and that their world-view of what is inclusive becomes the notability standard for Wikipedia? 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. Jknight98 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.201.131 (talk) 14:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.245.98 (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 10:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't see that the article (currently) states that the subject matter is any different from a sexual preference for any other race.
 * 2) By all means, please go right ahead and create similar articles for other races.
 * 3) New comments go to the bottom.


 * 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.  --Ladii artiste 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. mirageinred 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... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.118.55 (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag
What part of the article is not written in a NPOV? Please address concerns. Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 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. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 17:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i am also for removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.118.55 (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (from WP:V) Kaitenbushi (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

tag on definition
I notice that the user Tkguy continues removing the tag I put on the definition (a definition rewritten into its current form by Tkguy). WP:V 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 template [...] ''

Thus DO NOT remove this tag without first providing a reliable source! Kaitenbushi (talk) 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. Tkguy 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 Tkguy (talk • contribs)


 * 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 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. Kaitenbushi (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkguy (talk • contribs) 07:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I took the Prasso definition of AF, found in "Stereotyping of Asian personality traits" and replaced the current unsourced definition with this one. Kaitenbushi (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkguy (talk • contribs) 14:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 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. Kaitenbushi (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkguy (talk • contribs) 03:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


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

3RR
OK, seems like both me and Tkguy broke the three-revert rule. Since Tkguy has already reverted my last version, I can't follow this advice. I will take a bit of time off, and encourage Tkguy to do the same. Kaitenbushi (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I reported Tkguy b/c he refused to follow 3RR after I notified him of his wrongdoing. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 04:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine I added how you were working with kaitenbushi to skirt the 3rr rules. So let's see what happens. I've also mentioned your non-constructive editing of the Campus Watch (a American pro-Israel neoconservative think tank) page. Tkguy (talk) 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.  Lara  ❤  Love  04:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

editprotected I am concerned that the version of the Asian Fetish page that is now protected is the one that user:Christopher Mann McKay and user:Kaitenbushi 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 Asian fetish by putting them as the first sentences on the page. Here's the version I am proposing to use version 07:51, 29 November 2007. 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. Tkguy 01:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not an edit request. See Wrong version. Sandstein 20:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Since a stripped down version of the page that user:Christopher Mann McKay, 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. Tkguy 22:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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 fetish denotes a sexual attraction favoring Asian people for their race and perceptions of their culture.

with this one. This is far more objective.


 * Asian fetish is a term used for the racial fetish for people of Asian descent that is typically sexual in nature.

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 Kaitenbushi 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.Tkguy 02:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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


 * 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.

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. Tkguy 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.[4] 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. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 06:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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. Tkguy 02:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

❌ ❌ ❌ 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. Neil  ☎  09:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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, user:Kaitenbushi, who just got off from being 3rr block and of course is trying to prevent my changes from going through. Surprisingly it is user:Kaitenbushi who is implying that it is indeed racist.
 * Asian fetish denotes a sexual attraction favoring Asian people for their race and perceptions of their culture.

editprotected Please remove the below sentence from the page. User talk:Christopher Mann McKay 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.[4]


 * 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. Aberdeenharbour 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 Asian fetish is bad." Please don't make false claims about what I agreed to. Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 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.[4] 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. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 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? Tkguy (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My "agreement" is also a fabriction from Tkguy's side. Kaitenbushi 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. Tkguy (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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. Aberdeenharbour (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 WP:LEAD.—Christopher Mann McKaytalk 06:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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. Aberdeenharbour (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 Environment California page. Not to mention your vandalism of the American Family Association page and the Campus Watch (pro-Jewish think tank) Tkguy (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 racial fetish 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". Kaitenbushi (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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? Tkguy (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Asian fetish is not really a fetish, since fetish is directed at inanimate objects. Kaitenbushi (talk) 03:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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. Tkguy (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

} Protected edits declined. I cannot see any consensus here. Sandstein (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't get it Sandstein this guy Christopher Mann McKay 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 Aberdeenharbour and I don't believe he's been banned unlike Kaitenbushi and Christopher Mann McKay.Tkguy (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Aberdeenharbour (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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 editprotected template after it is very obvious, due to a well-structured discussion, that there is consensus about a specific wording. Sandstein (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

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. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 18:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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. Tkguy (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been accused of vandalism by people like you who do not/did not understand Wikipedia policy/guidelines. Regardless, I have not been even close to being banned from Wikipedia nor am I pushing an agenda. Please do not lie about things. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 04:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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. Aberdeenharbour (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)