Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 6

The following text was refactored from the main Talk page on 02:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sections for deletion
Now listed at Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex. --Wzhao553 05:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The entire previous talk page has been archived. Since this talk page was getting both long and ridiculous, it is obviously in the benefit of all parties involved to start from scratch. What I wanted to do now was to do a AfD style voting system for both the Physical anthropology section and the Testosterone section. If you don't know how this works, please see the archive for the AfD for Asian fetish located here: Articles_for_deletion/Asian_fetish. Since the article will likely not be unlocked until this dispute is settled, I think the only way to handle this situation is democratically.

''Also, everyone should remember to be civil and stay on topic. Please stick to voting, and do not let the discussion go out of control. I also hope that those of us who know how this works can help out those who do not.'' --Wzhao553 05:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

'''As I said, there is to be no more arguing over the sections, and definitely no more personal attacks. All the relevant points for all sides have already been made in the fifth archive. Please restrict your comments to straightforward voting.''' --Wzhao553 04:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: The groundrules for this vote are set out in WP:Consensus and Current surveys. I've registered this as a poll on the latter page. Not all the rules for AfD apply to this sort of poll. For example, it doesn't have to be closed by an administrator but can be closed by the initiator (Wzhao553). I propose that the closing date be one week from when this poll was started. Since it was initiated February 3 at 21:08, that would mean closing on February 10 at 21:08 {UTC). Sunray 18:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Several notes. First, it is unnecessary and counterproductive to point out what a voter's contributions have been or to conjecture what that voter may or may not be; anybody could arrive at such a conclusion anyway. Second, this is not an AfD for the article itself; if you believe that the article should be deleted, please read through the original AfD beforehand. Third, we'll continue to remove anything that either has been said before in an archive or does not directly relate to the material that is being discussed; simple comments about someone's vote are okay, but lengthy arguments over how a user voted is not okay. --Wzhao553 00:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your work in keeping a raucous discussion in some sort of format, but deleting comments is inappropriate, especially when they concern potential voting irregularities. -- Gnetwerker 01:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually there is a personal attack against me that I wouldn't mind seeing refactored. The only reason I didn't refactor it myself is that it reveals its author's cocktail of bigotries. Durova 19:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Physical anthropology

 * Keep. I wrote it in its entirety, I looked up all the sources, obviously I support it. --Wzhao553 05:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Surely you mean "re-wrote". I applaud your checking of sources and realize that you put considerable work into it.  The question remains, though: Is this really related to "Asian fetish"?  Because the sources are secondary (i.e., they do not refer directly to Asian fetish) the material surely is Original research. Sunray 17:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but REMOVE Knußmann references. He has 715 hits on google and is not encyclopedic. The wikilink on his name links to a list of anthropologists on the German wikipedia where his name is in RED. See User:Infinity0/Vandal_report for more details. Infinity0 talk 13:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly keep both the anthropology section and the correct testosterone section, I initiated the whole section and gave detailed references . 80.138.158.108 15:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, I just don't see its relevance nor have I ever seen it mentioned in any writings about Asian fetish.--ThreeAnswers 23:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly keep scientific explanations needed, like anthropological, medical and biological causes as elucidated in the sections on anthropology and testosterone, afterwards we could still add a historical section to summarize the article. Remember folks, this is not about our feelings, but about the facts. The rest of the article consists mostly of anecdotal "evidence" and/or original research about individual people. The testosterone and anthropology sections are the only objective, scientific parts and are very NPOV, since both aspects that speak in favor of Asians and areas that may be disadvantageous are mentioned--Mr Phil 05:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I vote to keep along Wzhao's lines.  If it becomes necessary I can become deeply embroiled in the matter myself but I trust that nonsense can be averted.  "Feelings" lol, talk about projection and rationalization, really MrPhil ;) Heaven&#39;s knight 06:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * comment Heaven's knight is not an old participant, but modelminority puppet.80.138.190.9 22:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but REMOVE Knußmann and Mongoloid references. Those references perpetuate racial prejudices. Keep Sheridan Prasso's statements.  Lycheng 06:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * commentLycheng is not an old participant, but a modelminority puppet.80.138.190.9 22:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Week Keep Interesting speculation, might need some less WP:NOR sounding statements. Ronabop 06:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Knaussman's material is not related to Asian fetish. Despite the attempts of editors to clean it up, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article on Asian fetish.  Sunray 17:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously, it provides some historical/cultural background by examining the "pseudoscience" that has often underpinned race relations between Western civilization and other cultures. --Gar2chan 00:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Read comments in section below. Any views or so called "evidence" discriminating, insulting or denigrating any group or people are considered racist and completely unacceptable. I mean if you allow the article to remain largely how it is, then your basically saying it is ok for someone to create any article saying a group of people or "race" is more physically attractive, diversified or "superior" than another group. This whole article is ridiculous and utter garbage. 69.157.121.76 05:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete the whole article, or re-write the entirety of it from scratch with more valid and supported research and more POV from other users. Right now, it comes across as ignorant racist POV. Epf 05:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete This section suffers from a severe case of reductionism. It speculates about why people "ought" to be attracted to one group of potential mates or another rather than citing evidence of discoveries of actual causes for attractions. "There's no accounting for ohter people's tastes" is still a good rule of thumb.  Typically these investigations must delve into the minutiae of individual socio-sexual history. 金 (Kim) 06:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * comment:Boasian leftist notion of the impossibility of clear and relatively easy laws of anthropology.80.138.190.9 12:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Regardless of the weight of the "paedomorphosis" and other cultural anthropology citations, there is no cited primary research establishing the link between this observation and attraction between asians and westerners. As with the section noted below, this clearly violates WP:NOR.  This is not an observation on the scholarship of the piece itself, but that the central theme (as opposed to the secondary evidence) of the section is not itself supported by any cited research except the author's. -- Gnetwerker 07:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * comment:Knußmann, Baker and Hartmann are "physical anthropology" not "cultural anthropology".All conclusions follow logically directly from their statements.


 * Delete. Not directly related to a sexual fetish. -Will Beback 02:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * comment: nope,the most related as it explains biological basics.80.138.191.208 11:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete The anthropology section is inherently racist.  If you accept the logic of this section, ie, that Asian men are naturally passive and feminine, then that means that you believe that Blacks are inherently violent and aggressive as well.  Isn't that the logical extension of this argument?  If some races are just "naturally that way", then what happens when you apply that standard to other races?  So let's just trot down this path and say that Asians are passive, Latino's are lazy, Jews are cheap, and Blacks are aggressive brutes.  Why not?  Apparently there are anthropologists who have done studies "proving" this.OneViewHere 20:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as digressive original research. Durova 16:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Do a search of leading English language journals of physical anthropology and you will not find support for this theory.  It is the crank theory of a crank contributor. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * comment: assistance professor Steve Rubenstein is a Jewish-American professor from Ohio who opposed my  contributions (unique on the web) on  "virago", too. But just  as the anthropological contents of "Asian fetish", "virago" has been a major concept since 3700 years at least, analyzed scientifically in detail since the end of the 19th century in  the beginning of anthropology as a distinct science (e.g.the world-famous Hartmann laws, Otto Weininger (M-F-line), Martin-Saller-Knußmann manual setting the world-standard since 1914, Meyer's Konversationslexikon ).The concept of tendentiously Lesbian masculine viragos dates back to the Babylonian "salzikrum" concept in the Codex Hammurapi 1700 B.C.. (personal attack removed by Will Beback) 80.138.192.188 23:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete It seems pov and not sources to back it up -- † Ðy§ep§ion † 20:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree it's a crank theory, but it's a real theory.  Are we going to delete articles on phrenology and astrology?  I can see it's a bit more volatile due to the racism, but IMO that's no reason not to include it.  I actually thought it was interesting, albeit offensive and ridiculous. #Masonbarge 22:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The role of testosterone

 * Comment Special:Contributions/Luan22 - could very well be SOMEONE making bogus accounts to get more votes. Infinity0 talk 12:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Special:Contributions/212.251.72.145  - could very well be SOMEONE using proxies to get more votes. Infinity0 talk 12:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP The section on testosterone is really the only one worth keeping. Hormones and hormonal levels are at the basis of all human behavioral patterns. Testosterone is the very reason for the sexual nature of male - female interaction (and essentially all human interaction). Masculine and mentally-functional men seek feminine women, and feminine and mentally-functional women seek mascBold textuline men. Both male and female East Asians are relatively sexually immature compared to Caucasians and Blacks. This need not be supported by studies. Go to any Chinatown in the world and you will see 20 year old men and women who look like 15 year olds by Caucasian or Black standards. Greater femininity in Asian women due to lower levels of androgen makes them appealing to non-Asians. Asian (Mongoloid) men are frequently not selected by Asian (Mongoloid) women when given a choice that includes the typically more masculine non-Asian men.  Merely because East Asians (Mongoloid) visitors here feel offended by the truth about the lower testosterone levels in Asian men and lower androgen levels in Asian women is not a valid reason to censor a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia should not allow censorship as though this is Google in authoritarian China. -- &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.236.25 (talk &bull; contribs).


 * "Go to any Chinatown in the world"??? News alert fella, Asians don't all live in "Chinatowns".  The racist assumption behind your ignorant statement is indicative of the racist mindset from which you are approaching this topic.OneViewHere 19:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

*comment: Thank you very much for supporting us   on the Asian racial / hormonal paedomorphosis.Please support us explicitly  in the anthropology section, too, as it is logically connected because  the positive selection for paedomorphosis in the Mongolids even led to the low testosterone, it is not its precondition.It is very important to keep the hormone section, tooAs the initiator of the whole process here now ,I will give further references when the anthropology section is accepted after this poll.80.138.190.9 01:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 80.138.190.9 01:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * None of the sources are relevant. This section is bogus content. Infinity0 talk 11:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've looked into this, and I simply cannot find any sources that directly deal with this subject. It seems like somebody just slapped some purported evidence together and formed his own conclusions. --Wzhao553 05:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (Moved) Comment. Wzhao553, I'm disappointed by your stance, what's wrong, couldn't you figure out a good response to the section on testosterone and so therefore you want to delete it now? If you are objective and disregard any personal feelings you may have about the subject matter, you must admit that the section is much more rational and encyclopedic than the previous parts of the article dealing with anecdotal accounts of individual possible asiaphiles and reviews of movies. The critics here seem to put their personal feelings above article quality and want this to just be a hit piece that fits their own identity politics agenda. I can understand, if some teenage boys like infinity think that way, but from you I would have expected more objectivity. --Mr Phil 05:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm disgusted there is even a vote on it. I spent about 30 minutes showing that all the sources were complete bull; see archive 5 for details. Infinity0 talk 13:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly keep, see my comment above.The hormone levels are even the result of the positive Darwinian selection for paedomorphosis in Asia and are crucial in the matter. 80.138.158.108 15:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research and my reason for voting delete on the anthropology section.--ThreeAnswers 23:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly keep, well documented scientifically, the only reason Asian people here are voting against it is that they don't like the implications and it doesn't fit in with the ideology espoused at websites like modelminority.com --Mr Phil 05:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Let's not waste our time with racist nonsense. The world is not made for them.  If need be long speeches can be made, but, I think the truth of the matter is easy to see.Heaven&#39;s knight 05:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Has some interesting infos --212.251.72.145 06:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Week Keep Interesting speculation, might need some less WP:NOR sounding statements. Ronabop 06:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Very racists statements being made. The so called masculine traits are all very subjective. Lycheng 06:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that the section should be toned down though, maybe present some counterevidence as well, too onesided --Luan22 06:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Uh... back to the topic at hand. This verbose presentation is only tenuously related to the article.  It is unencyclopedic in the extreme. Sunray 17:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - this has to be the biggest load of non-sense that I've ever seen. How can such a ridiculous concept be included in an encyclopedia ? Not only does this article have some sort of hidden ideological objectives, but so does the data and examples used to support it. I can't believe racist statements on how peoples supposedly appear "masculine" or "child-like" can even be allowed to be posted on Wikipedia. Views such as this will simply anger many people and fuel other racist movements and ideologies. This can only be very bad for Wikipedia. 69.157.121.76 05:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete of the whole article in its current form on the grounds that: 1) the limited scientific research mentioned is unreliable and widely refuted, 2) the whole article has some sort of racial supremacist POV, 3) the comments on this page will cause a significant furore amongst many other people, especially those with other unwanted racist views 4) as admitted by other users above, the article is largely of unverified original research which is alone enough to be considered for deletion, 5) not all POV on the article are equally repesented, and 6) the article is overall simply non-encylopedic material and unless the whole of it is re-written with the POV of several people, it should be removed. Epf 05:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the testosterone section was written to give an additional POV, since admittedly nobody really knows the dynamics of the "Asian fetish" and all of it is highly speculative. In its present form the article is just a racist hit-piece directed against non-Asian men with Asian women along the lines of modelminority etc.
 * In case the testosterone section doesn't go through, I will propose the entire article for deletion on the main VfD page once more and list these arguments.
 * --Mr Phil 07:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete the discussion of the role of testosterone. It's commonplace knowledge that testosterone attracts men to women.  Anything specific to this topic is extreme speculation. Durova 06:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * comment:Ah, just as the existence of hundreds of millions of viragos is speculation in spite of being a concept in physical anthropology...(personal attacks removed by Will Beback) Don't tolerate the Jewishly initiated feminist terror any more ! "The 21st century will become the century of the viragines if nobody stops them." Jawarlal P. Singh (1993)80.138.191.208 11:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a strange statement. What makes you think I'm Jewish?  Or white?  The AfD on Virago is old news that has nothing to do with this vote. Durova 06:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Anything that starts out with something like, "One possible explanation may be..." is not even offering to provide reliable information. 金 (Kim) 06:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete -- This is as clear-cut a violation of WP:NOR as I can imagine. There is no primary source supporting the central observation (of a preference for western males by asian females), just a bunch of facts arrayed in support of an original premise by the WP section author.  Regardless of the plausibility (or lack thereof) of the argument, this is original research, and does not belong here. -- Gnetwerker 06:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The question is not whether Asian women generally prefer Western men, which I also don't believe, but rather why there are more x-men with East Asian women than other way round. The rest of the article is at least as much original research and therefore would also have to be deleted. --Mr Phil 07:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't have an opinion on this, as my information on the topic comes solely from watching Grey's Anatomy. However, as a somewhat independent observer, this seems like original research to me, as all the citations are supporting and none are primary.  -- Gnetwerker 07:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Is any of the other stuff primary research about the "Asian fetish"? Was it peer reviewed in any way to meet minimal scientific standards? So if you want to delete the testosterone section, is there any justification in keeping anecdotal evidence, like the section on sexual crimes? --Mr Phil 09:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't know, but you should not contribute as both User:Mr Phil and User:80.137.17.131, as this violates Wikipedia's Sock Puppet policy. These edits, , and seem to indicate that this is the case.  -- Gnetwerker 10:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that Mr. Phil and IP 80.137.17.131 are one and the same. They should be considered one vote. Sunray 17:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, since I signed off with Mr Phil and didn't vote twice is it of any relevance? --Mr Phil 18:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a semi-polite way of wondering whether User:80.138.158.108, who has voted, might also be you. It seems unlikely that two people from the same part of Germany (whose only or primary contributions are to this page) would have such similar views on an obscure topic. -- Gnetwerker 18:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that user is not me, and please stick to the topic at hand.
 * Here is another WP policy for you to contemplate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
 * BTW, that I don't contribute to many subjects is a result of only posting on matters with which I have occupied myself thoroughly and for a lengthy period of time, in contrast to certain other users who seem to feel a need to spout out on 300 different subject matters.
 * --Mr Phil 19:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's cap this fascinating side show and let people continue voting below. Sunray 20:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

*I am not Mr. Phil I am not Mr Phil. That Mr Phil and I have an "entente cordiale" concerning our Weltanschauung does not change this fact.Your only hypothesis is that there cannot be two anti-Boasians in one German region.Any good detective would assume in contrast that the wikipedia in general is one hotspot of serious critics  on numerous subjects.First, we are not in the same region, and second there are thousands of "stealth scientists"  in Germany sharing our views while not publicly announcing them due to the suppression of free thought.My campaign will never stop, all of my scientific contributions are  first class independent from your acknowledging them. The brazen ignorance of my vote or the brazen deletion of the section on "Asian fetish"will further escalate the conflict.Numerous others also without my group support me due to the quality and usefulness of my contributions (e.g. my introducing the biggest critical work ever on Einsteinian relativity to the web within a global player like Wikipedia).It will be a very hard task for you to suppress free speech from now on.Either this article will be without bias, or it will be deleted and blocked completely as "virago" after my introducing serious anthropology.And this  will go on endlessly this way.80.138.190.9 20:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the blatant modelminority.com POV of the article needs to be toned down, an article on "White Nationalism" at wikipedia also doesn't take most of its infos from members of Stormfront. --Mr Phil 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not directly related to this sexual fetish. -Will Beback 11:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete As other posters have pointed out, this section has absolutely nothing to do with the core topic. Also, it has been shown that the links that Dr. Phil has provided do not have anything to do with testosterone and more specifically his contention that Asian men have lower levels of testosterone.  This section and the anthropology section were written by German supremecists.  One of them has repeatedly stated that "Jews are trying to control Wikipedia".  Look back through the discussion archives and read it for yourself. OneViewHere 20:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete An article on testosterone, or a section on testosterone in an article on hormones or the endocrine system is a good thing.  But to draw on specific research on testosterone in order to make original arguments about this Asian fetish thing is a clear violation of NOR. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. Rubenstein, just wondering what you think about the section on sexual crimes in the present article, is that no "violation of NOR"? --Mr Phil 00:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't the one you asked, but I find both the "Stereotypes of Asian manhood" and the "Sex Crimes" sections to be of extremely dubious connection to the subject of the article, at least in the weight they are given. While the whole article (other than perhaps the first paragraph) is distasteful, I would welcome an argument for removing them as well, or cutting them down to an NPOV minimum.  The "some people say" trope used in them is not, IMO, sufficient to make them relevant.  However, I don't think WP:NOR is the problem there, I think it is plain POV, and specifically WP:NPOV. -- Gnetwerker 06:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I think a comprehensive encylopedia must include this sort of thing, even though it is patently racist.    It's like one of those Nazi posters of "How to Tell a Jew", very interesting for understanding the point of view of some very misguided people.  And it is theoretically less ridiculous than say astrology.

What else is worth discussing?
This section was moved to Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 5 by Wzhao553 -- Gnetwerker 01:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the meaning of this arbitrary action? Why is content permitted to be censored by immediate archiving on an active discussion page? 金 (Kim) 17:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The comment has been restored below. Please be careful when archiving comments or cleaning up; if a user's points have already been mentioned or there is some other reason you believe the comment in unnecessary, please say so instead of removing the post. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 17:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

To me, the main problem with this article is that it lacks a proper foundation. The question should not, at bottom, be whether something is good or bad, or whether one writer likes it and another writer does not. An objective article should endeavor to explain what is really going on.

John Money has an interesting and useful concept that applies here. It is a concept based on research into sexual preferences. One view of sexual preferences is that all men are attracted to all women. Some men assert that they are, indeed, sexually attracted to all women. Even in those cases, I think that most people who make that claim would also claim to have a discriminating sense of the relative desirability of various possible sexual objects. Money explores the kinds of discriminations that humans make in their choice of sexual objects, from the ordinary and expected range of likely choices to the extreme range of odd choices that are called paraphilias. He maintains that the formation of an individual's love map is a highly contingent process. In the unproblematical cases an individual learns to evaluate potential mates on the basis of factors that can be objectively tied to future reproductive success and accompanying social success. As they mature, humans learn to determine who among their cohorts behave in ways that promote both their own success and the success of other, and also determine who among their cohorts are likely to get themselves and/or others into trouble. They then presumably ought to tend to pick mates with whom they will be compatible and with whom the rest of the community will be compatible. But sometimes the normal course of development is wrenched violently from its normal course by some (usually singular) event, and the individual learns to be highly attracted by certain unsual sexual objects. One of Money's most interesting examples is the case of a man he describes as suffering from "formicophilia." To make a long story short, a young man was violently interrupted by his father's hickory stick while having his first intercourse in a situation in which insects happened to be crawling over his body. He had been oblivious to the insects while involved with the young lady, but ever after he could only achieve sexual arousal if he allowed many insects to crawl over him.

Nothing so dramatic as a thrashing being administered during the time of initial orgasm to establish a life-long preference for a kind of lover that people whose lives had taken other turns might consider odd. The main thing that appears to be involved is what something means to the individual. What has one learned to expect when one meets a person exhibiting certain characteristics? If a white face means yet another member of a group that has systematically sought to trample one down, a member of the opposite sex belonging to that group may not be the obvious first choice as a potential sexual partner. If a member of a group that is "alien" and therefore not associated with prior abuse, or a member of a group that is friendly and openly accepting of one's sexual nature, comes on the scene at a time when one is sexually needy, that could conceivably be enough to establish an initial lowering of the mating threshold. Success in intercouse after a perhaps lifelong period of lack of any social success would surely be an enormous positive reinforcement, a clear path to learning that the "alien" sexual parter was a desirable one.

I am not suggesting that the article be written on the basis of my memories of Money's books (and one on love maps in particular), but that sources of information on what makes one person sexually/romantically/erotically attractive to another be researched and that they provide the foundation for the article. &amp;#37329; (Kim) 06:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC) (金）


 * comment:psychoanalytical trash,Money obviously only wanted to make easy money with that book. But please add it to the article after the block, I won't cancel a single word as it enlarges the giant quality gap between the anthropology section and the rest.80.138.190.9 12:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue is not whether you or I like John Money. The objective should be to improve the article. One subject of research interest is how sexual attractions are formed. A subset of that research would involve the question of whether some people form preferences for Asians (or Africans, or whatever), and, if so, what process or processes lead to that preference.


 * Thanks to Pathoschild for getting my stuff back. 金 (Kim) 18:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I made this admittedly arbitrary decision because we already decided (see Archive 4) that the article will only take a sociological (specifically postcolonialist) viewpoint, and would not discuss any psychological literature. The reason given was that the term "Asian fetish" is only used in sociological terms in published literature, and not in psychological terms, hence making any discussion of psychological literature inherently original research. --Wzhao553 19:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Who is this "we" that has "already decided" which viewpoint this article will take? The folks at modelminority.com? --Mr Phil 05:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The content that needs to be discussed is neither "psychological literature" nor is it "colonialist." It is sociological in the sense that an individual's sexual preferences are not formed exclusively by genetics (else all XY individuals would presumably chase only XX individuals and vice-versa), and are not formed by mental processes that occur in a social vacuum. The instances of sexual preference formation that are easiest to trace are ones that trace back to some kind of intense social interaction and carry the imprint of that social interaction into later life. One characteristic of sexual preference formation that warns against simplistic explanations based on so-called "race" or class is that sexual preferences are not simple "on" or "off" reactions based on those broad categories. We are not prohibited from thinking about what goes into an article. In fact we need to think about what goes into an article because otherwise we could not achieve balance and would end up with an article that supports one POV.


 * The assertion that "'Asian fetish' is only used in sociological terms in published literature" is too vague a formulation to be a proper subject for discussion or debate. If the intent was to claim that "Asian fetish" is a term that is only used in sociological literature, then the burden of proof is too extreme to be sustained. There will always be the possibility that some professional who is not a sociologist, like Milton Diamond for instance, will use the term in a discussion on sexology.


 * Hopefully the level of discourse on this subject among professional sociologists is higher than what is present in the current article. 金 (Kim) 06:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I had a look at what little can be found by Googling, and also a look at Amazon.com. I was not impressed by any of it. Is the bibliography in the article complete? Are all the authorities in the field of sociology who have researched this question or commented on the works of their collegues duly recorded? 金 (Kim) 06:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Article Rewrite
One of the apparent problems here is that there seem to be not only one, but two warring POV factions on this page. I have no vested interest (or special knowledge) of this subject, but I took a stab at a page that I humbly believe has less POV, NOR, and other problems. Here it is: Asian fetish/rewrite. See what you think. -- Gnetwerker 06:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's certainly a step in the right direction. There's still something missing.  There's a great deal of fetishism, politics, and culture, but how about the possibility that two people discard this load of baggage and simply fall in love?  The discussion discusses all relationships in terms of these other paradigms.  I'm sure these comments get tiresome after ten years of marriage. Durova 07:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The references to "normal interracial relationships" were meant to imply this, but take a swing at it. I'm sure it can be improved. -- Gnetwerker 08:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If we're going for an NPOV article that makes absolutely no sense, then this will do. Apparently people don't realize that taking out sections that other sections depend upon makes the entire article fall apart. --Wzhao553 07:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I will assume good faith and presume that you saw an intermediate state while I was editing the page. Things like the citations need to be cleaned up, and I am still uncertain that the "stereotypes" section is needed at all.  See unindented below for more comments, but as of this datestamp, it is an offer to the group as a replacement. -- Gnetwerker 07:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to assume that you're trying your best, but the problems start at the very beginning:


 * The term "Asian fetish" is a colloquialism used in the United States and Canada for an unusual or extreme sexual attraction of a non-Asian, typically a white man, to Asian women, primarily East Asians (such as Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Taiwanese).

I dispute this definition. If Asian fetish were an "unusual or extreme" sexual attraction, then it would be considered deviant behavior, which it is not. On the other hand, you might think that removing the phrase is sufficient, but then Asian fetish is not just any sexual attraction. At any rate, if it were that easy to define Asian fetish correctly, then we wouldn't be having lengthy debates on the rest of the article. My personal viewpoint is that it is pointless to write an article on a term that is not defined correctly at the very beginning. --Wzhao553 08:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the original article used "intense". I am not sure why that is better.  The definition of the word "fetish" implies "unusual" (actually "irrational or abnormal").  It is clear from the page that part of the dispute is that some consider it abnormal, and some unfairly stereotype normal interracial relationships with this term.  Hence both are in the intro.  If there is a widely-accepted definition, I would think it would be there by now.  Failing that, the page needs to start with all of the viewpoints. -- Gnetwerker 08:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I should point out that you are a partisan in this, having written the detailed, interesting, but original Physical Anthropology section. That seems to be one of the things causing the apparent "immune response". -- Gnetwerker 08:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My best and honest recommendation to you is that you read this article before thinking about Asian fetish per se any further. As the author explains, the term fetish can be used in three different contexts. This problem extends to Asian fetish, which is an odd conflation of all three contexts into one term that I personally have yet to fully understand. When I do understand the interplay between the three, then I will put it into the article, but until then I am hesitant to do so. --Wzhao553 08:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have read the article you cite and do not believe that it has any special bearing on this article. The cited article contains a cogent discussion of the three dictionary definitions of the word "fetish", only one of which applies here (unless one believes that people are literally objects in this discussion), with an opinion piece ("Enjoy Your Fetish") wishing for the de-stigmatism of some kinds of fetish and the creation of a notion of "commodity fetish" (i.e. over-consumption of resources, etc).  With minor exceptions, the article is about fetish objects, for which a near-synonym might be "totem".  My 3-year-old's treasured plush toy is, in this sense, a "fetish object".  But, regardless of the merits of that author's position, that article is entirely silent on race in general (though the author is a PhD candidate in Ethnic Studies), and "Asian fetish" in particular.


 * I don't think it can be reasonably claimed that the "Asian fetish" is either "an object believed to have supernatural power" or "a non-sexual object that abnormally excited erotic feelings". We are dealing exclusively with the definition involving "irrational" or "abnormal" attraction or devotion, and apparently also the conflation of such an abnormal attraction (if it in fact exists in high numbers) and unfair stereotyping of normal interracial relationships (by whichever "side" might have a reason to do so).  So, honestly, I think the rewrite is an improvement, though being associated with this whole thing at all -- even in trying to moderate -- is becoming more distasteful by the minute. -- Gnetwerker 08:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is interesting to note that in all the talk pages, not one contributor has been an Asian woman -- the target of Asian fetishism. A bunch of men are arguing over it and leaving out the voices of the actual alleged victims, despite there being plenty of available articles written by them. And I think this guy sums up the most common presentation of the theory. All of this physical anthropology stuff is interesting but since it never appears in literature about Asian fetish I don't see any justification for including it other than exhaustive comprehensiveness, which isn't a goal of Wikipedia.--ThreeAnswers 08:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you intuit gender or ethnic background from a few talk page posts? Durova 20:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, people, tell you what? How about we kill all the talk about "unusual or extreme" or "sexual attraction" and instead define Asian fetishism as "racial fetishism of Asians, especially Asian women"? Surely no one will object to that for a start. --Wzhao553 17:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. I don't think the target page racial fetishism is very good, but it could improve, and the intent of the suggestion is a good one. -- Gnetwerker 17:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Update: I have just read some of the available literature on racial fetish. First, it is dense, post-modernist (labelled "post-colonial") philosiphical theory (I minored in Philosophy 30 years ago but I'm rusty).  Second, the existing published literature that I sourced could, at best, be called tangential to the apparent underlying sexual fetishism implied in this article.  So, I think the link may be more misleading that helpful, but if it is enough to get a concensus on the simpler rewrite page, I'm still willing to go with it. -- Gnetwerker 00:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Writing about postcolonial research is hard. There's no question about that. The problem here is that we really need to assume that the reader has mastered Said's Orientalism as a prerequisite to understanding racial fetishism, which is of course unreasonable. But on the other hand, one cannot discuss postcolonial literature at all without reference to Said.


 * Let me suggest to you Suren Lalvani's article entitled "Consuming the Exotic Other" which attempts to connect commodity fetishism to sexual desire for the "Other" that Bhabha explores. The basic idea there is that in the Romantic consumer culture of Western Europe, "la femme orientale" is objectified as a commodity, and then consumed as a sexual object. Hence the commodity fetishism. The sexual element is definitely present in many discussions of racial fetishism.


 * (These were some earlier comments I made in Talk:Racial_fetishism.) --Wzhao553 05:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like something a general reader can digest, try David Henry Hwang's introduction to his play, M. Butterfly. It's somewhat intertextual with Puccini. The comparison is spot-on for this article. Edward Said might fit into the discussion also, but somewhat less directly. Durova 08:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me suggest alternatively that Wikipedia cannot (and should not) "assume the reader has mastered (insert your text here)". WP is not a philosophical monograph, it is an encyclopedia. I consider myself to be a (better than average) educated individual/generalist, and these arguments are at the edge of my ability, and very far past my interest. WP should not be cutting-edge philosophical research, but basic and widespread knowledge. Thus I suggest we find a simpler paradigm to explain. This is not meant to diminish the value or validity of the underlying research and theory -- just to constrain the domain for the generalist. Perhaps we need a Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia is not a post-graduate seminar. -- Gnetwerker 08:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Gnetwerker, in fact there is already plenty of post-graduate work on Wikipedia not constrained to the generalist. You can take a look at pages like Permanent is sharp-P-complete or the Immerman-Szelepcsényi theorem, which obviously assume mastery of something like Papadimitriou's Computational Complexity; or the Erdős–Ko–Rado theorem which assumes familiarity with something like Jukna's Extremal Combinatorics. (At least those are the texts from which I learned those results.) But I don't understand why philosophy and sociology should be held to a different standard. There's plenty of generalist mathematics available on WP as well as highly techincal and cutting-edge research; why can't the same be done for the humanities and social sciences? --Wzhao553 00:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I would think here was a distinction to be made between broadly-accepted and "provable" theorums in mathematics and computer science (which happen to be my fields of expertise), and controversial philosophical theories espoused by a small handfull of academics. Further, a page devoted solely to an academic discussion of such a theory might be acceptable, but the cross between discussion of a (putative) pop-culture phenomenon that is controversial and such an emerging field is, clearly, the cause of the wars surrounding this page. The discussion of Marxist "consumer fetishism" and its analog in race portrayal, in a truly academic context and couched in terms that show the fringe/emerging nature of the argument would, I suspect, elict more light and less heat. -- Gnetwerker 01:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, which controversial philosophical theories do you object to including? David Henry Hwang wrote a notable Broadway play about Western sexual/racial prejudices regarding China.  The play was partly a critique of Puccini's opera.  Edward Said's Orientalism has been widely influential in academia and, if included, could probably be summaried in a couple of sentences. Durova 02:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As I tried to say above, and article about the academic theories might be appropriate, but no one seems to be able to write it in a way that has broad consensus, a hallmark of Wikipedia. However, I am done arguing about all of this.  I ducked in here on a whim to see if I could help, and the answer is clearly not.  My general observation is that the folks on this page prefer the fight to the result.  Good luck, I am outta here. -- Gnetwerker 06:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

General POV comments
While rewriting the page, I was shocked at how much latent POV is in there. I don't mean facts -- I am not qualified to judge their per se accuracy. The article is laden with phrases like "huge disparity" (vs. simply "disparity"), "activists allege", U.S. media "constantly portrayed" (vs. "portrayed"), a danger to "innocent white women" (vs. guilty ones?), "critics contend", "the irony is" (in an encyclopedia article!), "today the biggest critics ... are generally Asians", while "others adopt a more egalitarian view". It is astonishing, and this is leaving out the giant sections identified above (anthropolicy, sex crimes, etc) which appear to be someone's POV, but certainly NOR.

A bigger problem is that virtually none of the bald-faced statements in the article have real citations. "The Joy Luck Club ... is strongly disliked by many Asian organizations" Is this actually true? If so, there should be a citation. "asian fetish is suggested as an explanation for the (census) disparity" -- by whom? You would think that, in the course of gathering 5 full archive pages of talk, there would have been some actual citations stuck in there.

I don't want to get in between the warring factions here (probably too late), but if the page must exist, it needs to be a short, succinct page of widely-agreed upon facts, with the incipient social research carried on somewhere else. -- Gnetwerker 08:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ugur Basak censored my free speech only citing here a leftist pamphlet against the Asiaphiles.80.138.193.152 12:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Untrue -- you deleted my comments and others'. Ugur Basak did the page a service by speedily reverting the edit.  No contribution of yours was lost. -- Gnetwerker 16:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont censore anything, that is the link you have blanked a part of the page, may be you did it mistakely http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsian_fetish&diff=39060975&oldid=39043980

As you can see from 2 differences, you've vandalized the page by removing others comment.--Ugur Basak 12:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This user (ip address 80.138.193.152) has a long history of altering other people's comments in the discussion page. That should be the basis for banning his account in my opinion.OneViewHere 23:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest proceeding to a user RfC. 208.54.14.9 15:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Virago directly connected to "Asian fetish"
If my comment is censored again, it will enhance the conflict furthermore. The article on "virago"will be re-established as soon as possible as it is necessary to inform people about the racially  very masculine Western women compared to the Mongolids (e.g. Martin-Saller-Knußmann manual).80.138.193.152 22:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC) The universal history of the virago comes back to you.From the Babylonians to the Jewish trash comic industry and its virago icon "Wonderwoman", "the subconscious, elaborately disguised desire of (gayish ;addition by author) males to be mastered by a woman who loves them". As 20th century's leftism and feminism have essentially Jewish key players (cf. Kevin MacDonald and www.jwa.org), of course the Osteuropid "Wonderwoman" fighting against the evil Nazis (Remake 2007 (!)) is effective,too, in weakenening male European society. As a curiosity, the Christian legend of the collaboration between the "Red Jews" and the "amazons" has foreseen this unholy collaboration of a hostile elite and Europid manlike viragos.God bless them.80.138.193.152 22:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting that you make a point of mentioning people's Jewish ancestory at every opportunity.   That's 3 times in the above paragraph alone.  What does the "Jewish trash comic industry" have to do with Asian Fetish?  And why do you think this article on Asian Fetishism is "weakening male European society"?  You have a knack for obfuscation.  Anybody can talk like an encyclopedia, but you are trying to expand the scope of this article in directions that are wildly inappropriate and inapplicable.


 * The only "conflict" I see here is your obsession with race-based behavior and the Jewish race. You never answered my question:  Why do you think that "Jews are trying to control Wikipedia"?  You've made this claim several times already and have yet to address it.  And if human behavior can be determined by race (ie, "passive Asians"), then what happens when you start applying that logic to other races?  ie, "violent blacks" or "lazy Latinos".  How is this not fundamentally racist?  OneViewHere 23:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If you call someone who sees massive evidence in the literature for the inequality of the races on average, then I am a racist. How to deny Baker, MacDonald , Harpending , Rushton , Martin-Saller -Knußmann evidence ? The world is deep to the core a world of materialistic phenomena. Man is an animal biologically. Why not apply science with the highests possible rigour to him? Was v. Eickstedt big optimism concerning psychometry overexaggerated ? And why not criticize the asocial behaviour of a tiny minority within a minority ? What I wrote was descriptive. And If-Then possibilities. If the West wants to survive, then it should do this and that according to scienctific evidence.It is hard for you to believe,but I am not anti-Semitic. I am not interested in Nordic racial preservation.The influx of feminine elements is the best thing what could happen. Neo-Nazi Kevin B. MacDonald's  funny  Nordic virago  preservation is shit and 100% impossible. In 2100, the yellow race will dominate the world I am happy with that very much as you certainly can imagine by now. I praise the day when 60% of the American population is Asian, 30% Black and 10% White. Come in, Africans, come in ,Asians, and make the viragos die out. I wish for that no virago exists any more by the peaceful lack of reproduction of them which is 100% sure.And if gene technology creates them again, I will create real females in the laboratory, two keels for one. 80.138.142.102 03:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Result of Vote -- The Virago page envisioned by the poster above has been deleted, and is prevented from re-creation. This position has been rejected from Wikipedia. I would suggest that discussion of it take place elsewhere. -- Gnetwerker 09:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Closure of Voting
Voting for the two disputed sections has closed. There seems to be an overwhelming majority of users who want the Testosterone section closed. So that passes. As for the physical anthropology section, it looks like (ignoring strength) 8 votes for keep and 11 for delete. However, two of those votes are by users who cannot be considered regular users. If we discount those two votes (User:Heaven's Knight and User:Lycheng) then it looks like we have a clear majority for delete.

Given that I wrote the physical anthropology section and given that I do know who the two voters are outside of Wikipedia, I will pass the final decision on the section to User:Pathoschild, since he is an impartial administrator, as that would be in the best interest of all parties. --Wzhao553 04:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I decline to judge this vote. Votes should never be used to override a point of view, except where this point of view is clearly wrong in some way. Please see the dispute resolution process, or ask for another administrator's help at the Administrator's noticeboard. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 13:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The results of the vote are clear. In both cases a Supermajority of editors have indicated a preference for deletion of these sections. Referring to WP:Consensus, such a vote is not taken as an absolute. However, "Surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication fails." Usually on talk pages a two thirds majority is considered decisive in determining the content of an article. Sunray 17:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been asked to look at this. First, remember that we don't straightforwardly vote in this sort of case, but try to achieve consensus. In so far as the poll has the effect of a vote (in that it justifies action), the reasons and arguments offered are as impoortant.  For example, I tend to give little if any weight to someone who just writes "delete" or "keep" without a reason.  Secondly, and relatedly, we're not just counting up votes to see if there's a simple majority (and when we are looking for majorities, something significant is needed; 11–6 is on the borderline &mdash; over a third of participants want to keep the section.
 * Looking at the discussion and "votes" together, though, I'd say that the two sections should clearly be deleted. The overt racism on the keep side is unpleasant, but not a key factor; what counts is that the reasons for deletion are well made, and appeal correctly to Wikipedia policies on original research and NPoV.  There are also some suspicious new participants on the keep side, and the central rôle played by anons doesn't help.
 * I'll check to see what the situation is with regard to carrying out this sort of decision on a protected page, and come back when I've got the information. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Racist Garbage, This Whole Article Should Be Deleted
The entire article is based on a string ignorant racist stereotypes presented without being logically examined. The article is the work of people working hard, but barely managing to conceal their own ignorance, jealousy and hatred. An article as baseless in fact, and as obviously purely opinion-based as this one has no place in a site pretending to be any sort of serious encyclopedia.

If Wikipedia allows this garbage to stand, neo-Nazis should be allowed to post articles on how Jews destroy societies, and how to identify them through skull-measurement; Japanese right-wingers should be allowed to post justification for the actions of their military during the '30s and '40s, flat-earthers should be allowed to present their view as a valid opinion. All of this idiocy can be "supported" by "evidence" written by quacks with as much authority in their fields as the ones cited in this article.

WIKIPEDIA-- DELETE THIS ENTIRE SACK OF GARBAGE IF YOU WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AT ALL

67.92.214.246 02:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC) A Disgusted Wikipedian

As you are obviously prone to aggression (see wikipedia anti-aggression principles), you are obviously prone to any aggressive ideology if it serves your interests.You are obviously a sock puppet of model minority,too, as you are a new user.For you, the world is black-white  : the bad Japanese , the bad Nazis and the good Jews.Many users  appreciate the anthropology section which I initiated and which was first class on the net after my giving the refereces.Do you think that the writers of it are garbage humans, too ? Your aggression only shows your total helplessness towards real science by world authorities. Here is the old version for you to rethink it, there is nothing prescriptive or offensice in it:

(Text snipped by Will Beback 22:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)) 80.138.166.174 17:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not post deleted text on the talk page. Thanks, -Will Beback 22:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And you are very obviously a racist trying to broadcast your warped views on life here by posing as rational, and doing a very bad job of that. You use the new argument of the racist: "YOU are full of hate because you hate my racism!"

This article presents biased, racist opinions, and then pretends to "balance" them by presenting opposing views. The purpose is to thereby lend credence to the patently absurd, racist opinions stated in the first place, as if both sides of the issue were equally valid.

"Some people hold that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. [carefully cite crackpot sources here]. Other people, however disagree. [token citations of sources who wasted their time responding to racist garbage here]..."

Yeah, yeah, now purposely miss my point, and pretend I'm saying ALL blacks are good, and ALL whites are bad, while YOU are presenting the opinion that ALL Asians are child-like (couching it in the intellectual-sounding term "paedomorphosis"), and that people attracted to them are pedophiles.

This kind of intellectually dishonest clown act does not belong in an encyclopedia. This kind of pseudo-intellectual, patently absurd garbage is more suitable to a heavily-trolled Yahoo message board than in anything purporting to be a valid encyclopedia.

I know how pointless it is to argue with racists such as yourself, so I'm not going to waste any more of MY time with this piece of trash article. But I'll continue to call garbage GARBAGE when I see it.

WIKIPEDIA-- DELETE THIS ENTIRE SACK OF GARBAGE IF YOU WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AT ALL

Wzho533, could you please judge now as you have the right to do so. Thank you very much in advance.80.138.166.174 17:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This was our very good version, please let us write another section about the criticism (Prasso).80.138.166.174 17:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The vote was clear as Sunray stated correctly: there was n o 2/3 majority for the anthropology section deletion faction (57,8%).
80.138.166.174 22:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection and deletion
I've deleted the section as discussed above, in line with consensus; I've also softened the level of protection to semi, in the hope that more normal editing can continue. I must say that this article needs a thorough clean-up at the least. If it were up for AfD I'd probably vote against at the moment. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

40% of the votes are not respected !
I will revert Mel Etitis deletion of the anthro-sec because of the following, agreeing to Sunray's previous comment on wiki standards:User Mel Etitis's deletion of the anthropology section did not respect that there was  no 2/3 majority for deletion (in neither of the two proposed ways of counting the votes ):surveys and the Request for comment process are designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication fails." Usually on talk pages a two thirds majority is considered decisive in determining the content of an article.80.138.194.229 23:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As several people have said, consensus is not simply a numbers game. There are many other factors that are taken into account.  Allow me to draw your attention to something that Mel Etitis said in that regard: "... what counts is that the reasons for deletion are well made, and appeal correctly to Wikipedia policies on original research and NPoV.  There are also some suspicious new participants on the keep side, and the central rôle played by anons doesn't help."  It is well established within Wikipedia that anons and very new users do not have the same weight as established users. Sunray 00:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus of real distinct users was clear. Also, we all have the rights to delete that section, not just Wzhao533, since all content here is under the GFDL. Infinity0 talk 00:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * user:Sunray wrote, "In both cases a Supermajority of editors have indicated a preference for deletion of these sections." That seems clear. -Will Beback 00:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

'''And I have the right to add it again. You have to respect the will of 40% of the people.This is a fact, anything else are your assumptions.'''80.138.194.83 22:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: "...40% of the people." You will have to prove that you are a person in order to gain respect around here.  To date you are a series of anonymous IP numbers in the range 80.138.XXX.etc.  That could be one person or ten.  No way of knowing.  To put it plainly: your vote does not count.  Sunray 03:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And you have to prove that you are not part of the manipulation described in Kevin B. MacDonald's "Culture of Critique".40% is nearly a supermajority and should be respected.80.138.168.39 11:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 80.138.168.39 11:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "40% is nearly a supermajority"... That's superb. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As there are US legal supermajorities of 55% and 60% not too funny, hm ?80.138.168.39 00:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, 55% and 60% is a mathamatical majority. 40% is NOT a "majority", let alone a "supermajority".  You're not even making any sense.  I think even the most casual observer who reads your statements will see the fallacy of your arguments.  Once again, if you support race-based behavior, (ie, Asians are "naturally feminine and passive", then how is that different from saying that "blacks are violent" or that "Jews are greedy"?  It's the SAME reasoning and I still haven't heard you address this yet.  Until you address this logical fallacy I will assume that you are avoiding the issue to avoid being seen as racist, -which should by now be obvious to even the most casual reader of this discussion.OneViewHere 18:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Templates
cleanup and NPOV are enough; adding weasel etc. only over-eggs the pudding. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said in my comment, I think the weasel designation is the most important one. PhatJew 10:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But the weasel one is a subset of the NPoV one; that is, it's a particular way in which the article's PoV, so it's covered by the general template, but is only part of that template. It's thus the less important one. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, I must disagree. More specific tags help editors fix the problem. PhatJew 23:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

40% of the votes are not respected
Censoring will fail and the power of the censors.80.138.193.77 02:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that your previous article on "Virago" was deleted from the German Wikipedia for precisely the same reasons. You are creating quite a precedent here.  Please tell us again how "Jews are trying to control Wikipedia" and that "leftist feminists are ruining European man".  You must be quite the cut-up at parties....  OneViewHere 18:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

40% of the votes shall be respected 2
80.138.168.55 17:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You can make your font as large as you want. That won't make people agree with you.

Tell me again how you think "Jews are controlling Wikipedia"? Your silence on that topic is.....deafening.OneViewHere 20:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * He probably thinks that the evidence is in the little stars of David found everywhere; you know, "* * *". Either that or Elvis told him. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Read in the archives of this page my views on Judaism and the Negrids, I will not repeat them again, but I know, you like it so much to hear it again live.- You don't respect the will of 40% of the voters ,this could be labeled a dictatorship as the wikipedia should be open to all views if they are scientifically well-grounded.And their is no higher authority than the Matin-Saller-Knußmann manual settin ght eworld standard since 1914 (4th rev. ed. 1996). Furthermore you  spread anti-multicultural propaganda.If there would be no Prasso hate campaign, then one could say, okay, the leftists nonsense does not do any short-term harm, but here a major group of at least ten million people worldwide is attacked due to all too obvious reasons for nothing.On  some web threads , you can read about young Eurasian  women who are suffering obviously from this leftist-inspired discrimination against  them as pervert Caucasians'  bastards .Now you will answer of course , MacDonald attacks the Jews,too,but  no ,he doesn't , he only states scientifically that some Jews had a major negative impact on the West which is obviously essential in its failure.The  virago Prasso and hundreds of millions of other viragos have an  envy and hatred of the Europid universal civilization and its achievements. However, viragos have not directly contributed essentially to civilization, but have been idealized in the Jewish controlled media (Wonderwoman remake 2007).And in addition to Kevin B. MacDonald's essentially right conclusions, Jewesses were essential in the success of the second and third wave feminists.And it is a scandal that  Steve Rubenstein denies the  existence of the anthropological concept of the virago and the existence of several hundred millions of viragines worldwide abusing his academic position. Simply put, one cannot understand womanhood without the notion of the anthropological virago and its racial implications, neither Goddess  Kali, Mother Mary , queen  Neithhotep  nor Abu Graibh's torture Harman.At the moment , I'm  calculating how many American and Vietnamese lives could have been saved if the will of the Vietnamese people had not been underestimated by Boasian war anthropologists.Furthermore,it is estimated that 20% of all sexual abuses are committed by viragines,e.g.But as the judges see them as "women", they  often -enough get mild sentences.Or look at the porn industry: 95% virago actresses.Viragos often-enough act as aggressive she-wolves, yes "she-wolves " without any compassion for anything.Harman's and Lynndie England's pics show this reality of the Nordic virago which is the uncrowned "queen" of viragodom.Of course , of course , the Boasians will show that Lynndie England has been a product of Texas's special acceptance of violence being one of the five cultural sectors in the US according to Geoffrey Gorer's "Americans".Or, let's say, google the women  delinquents' pics on the net in different US counties. All viragos.You leftists are a deadly threat to the West in my opinion which will be clearly seen one day in retrospect as t h e biggest destruction in human history.Then hundred millions of people will begin to think about the MacDonald stuff and how it could be possible that such a fantastic flourishing civilization of Beethoven, Mozart ,Goethe and Aristotle could be destroyed by a minority. 80.138.168.55 23:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Now wash your hands. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Now wash your thinking.80.138.128.87 13:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you think this way. Were you always like this? Infinity0 talk 13:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So, you think the media is a "Jewish controlled media", in addition to believing that Wikipedia is "controlled by Jews". :Sometimes when you give someone enough rope..... OneViewHere 15:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You really think that the billionaires, politicis, states ,armies, races are benign to one another ? You don't think you are naive ("the 2003 textbooks say there are no races" etc. etc. ) ? As long as you not accept the truth, you can be compared to children thinking the elders will care for them , but they do not.The media are so free and not controlled by minorities! Hahaha. The world is ruled by pseudo-intelligent,feminine, choleric-sanguine,sick and egotistic people not fit for any deeper scientific and ethic  reasoning totally brain-washed by their own propaganda. The leaders of the West e.g. will be made responsible for their weakness and stupidity not stopping the West's death struggle.There is no free speech in Europe, the old concepts as the virago concept and the Hartmann laws are ridiculed by androgynous leftists worldwide.But you can take for granted that maybe the patient "The  West" dies, but some of its leftist malign "doctors" will perish, too.You are and stay herd people mainly maladapted to your natural interests, this is your providence according to the Laplace laws.For infinity0 , one could suggest that instead of tuning in the leftist song it would be better if he would enter Chinese politics and appreciate the strenght of sinocentrism instead of multiculturalism which does not serve his interests. For Mr. Rubenstein, one could suggest that the Boasian manipulations should be a bit more sophisticated not denying the existence of the virago concept itself.Whenever someone like me would establish in Harvard or Athens, it would be difficult for him to maintain these lies about biology. Rushton, MacDonald and Harpending are only the vanguard, others will follow, greater thinkers. Whenever an elite gets parasitic (and not all eltites were parasitic), the suppressed and exploited majority and its leaders will overthrow the system surely. The coming 50 years of Zbigniew Brezinzky's "technotronic" suppression will not alter this fate, either.80.138.128.87 00:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)