Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 8

Archives
Previous discussion can be found at:
 * Talk:Asian fetish/Archive
 * Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 2
 * Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 3
 * Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 4
 * Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 5
 * Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 6 -- contains discussion resulting in deletion of "Physical anthropology" and "testosterone" sections
 * Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 7 -- 16 Feb 2006 - 11 Mar 2006
 * Talk:Asian fetish/Archive 8 -- 11 Mar 2006 - 4 Apr 2006

Deletion
Can someone tell me what was the reason for the "The Role of Testosterone" and "Physical anthropology" sections to be deleted?Keff 10:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Refactored
I refactored the approx. 152Kb Talk page to the archives. -- Gnetwerker 00:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring / Reorganization
I have tried to reorganize the article into three distinct sections, one for each of the major meanings. While I have shortened some sections, I have not tried to change any important content or alter any arguments (even when I think they should be altered). If the passionate interests on either side disapprove, feel free to revert. However, I think this clarifies the 3-way disjunction a little. I do not think this means the article is done. Human Fetish's position has, IMHO, not yet been represented adequately, but this may provide a better place for that to happen. -- Gnetwerker 17:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Gnetwerker -- who has formulated this "The term Asian fetish is a neologism that may appear in three distinct contexts"? You should not draw conclusions yourself. Please provide any respectable sources that explicitly states "'Asian fetish' is a neologism that may appear in three distinct contexts". Otherwise, I'd guess the writer just made that story up. / Fred-Chess 21:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't remember when "neologism" came into the article. It was "slang term", then "colloquialism", but people objected to those, then it became simply "phrase", then someone recommended looking at another article (can't remember which one) that uses that turn of phrase, and it appeared here.  Regarding "three distinct contexts", I am probably the one who wrote that, or some version of it.  It is an observation from the three competing points of view here -- each of which is cited in the subsequent article: the porno one, the Asian activist one, and the academic one.  It is hard to see how you can object to that, it's a summary, after all.  If you are concerned about the word "distinct", then I could see a good argument there (they aren't completely distinct), so have at an edit. -- Gnetwerker 21:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC) -- Addendum: Neologism came from the Creationism article.  Someone recommended that article as an example of a good page on a controversial issue. -- Gnetwerker 21:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The term neologism is most apt, IMO. As to the statement that Asian fetish may appear in three distinct contexts, that seems to me to be a fairly straight-forward description.  How else can one write an encyclopedia article than by describing the phenomenon at hand?  Sunray 16:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see how that reorganization makes the article clearer; actually, it seems to do the opposite by obscuring the connection between overlapping domains of terminology. --Wzhao553 21:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your straight forwardness on answering my concerns.
 * My main concern is that I don't trust this three-way distinction. Why not make four distinctions? And who has made this disctinction in the first place? Unless some credible sources are quoted on this, this will just be constant NPOV dispute.
 * Fred-Chess 17:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with these comments. I think that the "three-way distinction" is just a way to try to bring order out of chaos.  If someone can think of a forth distinction, perhaps it should be added.  Or perhaps the three sections approach should be abandoned.  I think that the key is to try to build on what others are doing. A lot of work has gone into trying to make this article better.  It still has a ways to go, though. Sunray 17:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be to leave the page in its current form. I personally think the page sucks, and that the majority of the problems of POV that arise are a result of confusion and overlap between the various definitions. However, if I am in the minority, so be it. The page has been largely stagnant -- in a state that outsiders consider not only POV but virtually unreadable -- for over 2 weeks (despite dozens of edits and vandalism reverts), so that was my impetus to be bold.

Regarding Fred-Chess's comment regarding the three-way distinction and POV:
 * The organization of information does not normally have a citation, unless you believe that the organization itself presents a point of view. Other than straight anti-reductionist arguments (which is essentially what Wzhao553 makes), the point of an article's organization is to make it clear to the reader, independent of the content; and
 * WRT to POV, this page has been in a constant state (more or less) of edit-warring ever since March 2005 -- over a year. Participants come and go, and wars are won and lost on the subjects of (e.g.) including purported information about the testosterone levels of Asian men, including putative anthropological evidence, and including lists of sex crimes allegedly committed as a result of Asian fetishes.
 * As it stands, the page predominantly takes the POV of Asian-American social activists, while giving some lip service to other points of view, and this is why breaking the page into three sections makes sense (to me, at least) -- it provides a structure around which to seek some balance between (e.g.) User:Human Fetishist's view and that of (e.g.) Wzhao553.

However, above all, Wikipedia is consensus-driven, so (regrettably) I acknowledge the continued lack thereof, and (without regret and with respect) invite you to edit the page to improve it. -- Gnetwerker 19:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Stereotypes of Asian womanhood-- Harry Potter: Wizard or Post-Colonial Asian Fetishist?
The author of the Harry Potter series could have made things so much easier for Asian-American belly-achers by simply excluding Asians from her stories. Then they could have accused her of discriminating against Asians, case closed. And then when she does include an Asian character-- Cho Chang-- she doesn't even have the decency to give her any obviously stereotypical Asian traits! So what's a nit-picker to complain about??? Here we go:

"J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series features an Asian romantic interest named Cho Chang, a seemingly nonsensical combination of a Korean and a Chinese name[10]." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_fetish#Stereotypes_of_Asian_womanhood

This statement is scrupulously backed up by an opinion article which starts with the bold, and boldly nonsensical statement that, "Asian fans and readers of the book are looking critically at how Asian Americans fit into the Hogwarts world..."

Uh... Asians are concerned about how Asian AMERICANS fit in? Am I mistaken, or isn't Hogwarts in Britain? But let's let this slide. The standards for the "Asian fetish" article, obviously, are far too lofty for such nit-picking. Let's get right to the heart of the matter: "a seemingly nonsensical combination of a Korean and a Chinese name."

The writer of this opinion piece apparently doesn't know many Koreans, and the editors of the "Asian fetish" article apparently don't care enough about reality to check their sources. The simplest, most obvious thing would be to check a list of Korean names, wouldn't it? (Supposing, that is, you don't already know from personal experience that Cho (or Jo) and Chang (Jang) are both relatively common Korean names.)

Go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Korean_family_names#.E3.85.88

and look down the McCune-Reischauer column and you will find: Chang... and Cho. Very strange, huh?

But since we're in a rare fact-checking mode, let's take this one step further, and look at a list of Chinese names too. If you go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_Chinese_surnames

and look in the W-G (Wade-Giles) column, you will find: Chang... and Chou. (No, not an exact match, I'll grant you that.)

Now the writer of this opinion piece doesn't say this is a nonsensical combination of two Korean (or possibly Chinese) surnames. No, that wouldn't make Rowling sound like an ignorant, arrogant white colonialist, would it? Better to stretch the truth and say it's a nonsensical Korean/Chinese combination. After all, this isn't a serious piece of writing someone would actually use as a source for reference, is it? Who's going to notice?

Oops. Once again reality doesn't agree with groundless opinion. So which do we choose? For editors of the "Asian fetish" article, the choice is obvious: Groundless opinion.

And obviously, Rowling is very careful about not giving other characters nonsensical names, isn't she? She would never get away with giving her her white characters ethnically stereotypical names like, oh, "Igor Karkaroff" or "Seamus Finnigan." Instead she always gives them completely normal names like "Albus Dumbledore," "Professor Quirrell," "Percy Weasely," "Severus Snape," "Sirius Black," "Peter Pettigrew," "Cornelius Fudge," "Bellatrix Lestrange," "Neville Longbottom," "Draco Malfoy," and "Lord Voldemort," doesn't she?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_%28character%29

Oooo! Doesn't the injustice just make your blood boil? ;)

Ah... What's the point? This article is hopelessly POV and some of the editors are obviously intent on keeping it that way.

Gnetwerker, you seem interested in trying to do a genuinely NPOV rewrite of this article, so I'll accept your invitation to move over there and see if I can help you fix this mess, if it's even possible... which a survey of the literature has led me to doubt... Human Fetishist 02:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your argument. Instead of presenting extremely nonsensical arguments here, why not simply post your complaints on the article which your complaints actually address, rather than argue your case here? See: Cho_Chang --Wzhao553 04:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

For mercy's sake, Human Fetishist, just start editing the article itself. We're running the risk of using all of the available bits for the Talk page. -- Gnetwerker 06:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Gnetwerker, Wzhao553 has shown consistenly, and he shows again above and below that he prefers biased POV and crackpot pseudo-science to provable fact. And he has shown that he will re-edit to keep the article in this poor shape. I just pointed out one more provably wrong statement in the article and its sources, and he regards this as an "extremely nonsensical argument." I suppose I should have backed my claims up not with scholarship, but another op/ed piece.
 * I'm not interested in engaging in an edit war, and it was my impression that edits were to be discussed on the discussion page. Apparently the "Asian fetish" group doesn't work that way. My mistake. Have at it. Human Fetishist 14:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Human Fetishist, let's put this bluntly. In this case, you are simply mistaken. You seem to think, because both Cho and Chang are both Korean family names, that Cho Chang is a realistic name. Other editors have already pointed out why this reasoning is absurd: Cho_Chang:


 * It is possible that, not being very familiar with East Asian languages or traditions, Mrs. Rowling simply created a character using two surnames, not realising that she was committing this mistake.


 * How you think what you pointed out is provably wrong, is completely beyond me, and therefore I regarded it as an "extremely nonsensical argument" in this case. --Wzhao553 19:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it perhaps possible that Cho Chang could be of Chinese and Korean descent, and was given a surname for her first name? It seems to me that that does happen... Esquizombi 10:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?
I'm confused. How is this vandalism?


 * The Bell Curve, a best selling book from the 90's went on to take the Asian stereotypes and further substantiate them with controversial studies proving that Asians, while superior than the other races in intelligence, lagged behind those same races on physical measures as specific as penis size.

If we never allow anything negative about Asian men into the article, how can we ever manage NPOV? Sheridan Prasso writes in her book:


 * There is one more issue that must be addressed in the discussion of Asian men and issues of femininity and masculinity, because it comes up so often in terms of white and black men asserting superior sexual potency: the issue of penis size or, in slang terms, the "Hong Kong dong." (p. 121)

Besides, the supporting exposition exists on Wikipedia anyway: Penis_size. --Wzhao553 08:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple -- there is no reputable secondary source on this topic. Your quote poses a question, it does not propose substantially verifiable research. Adding that information in is no different than allowing the Asian fetish vandal's unsubtantiated information here. In any case, this is not primarily an article on stereotypes against Asians (IMHO it has far too much on that subject): it is about certain reactions to those stereotypes. The anti-Asian mail stereotypes are well-described. Adding the "penis size" canard to this paragraph does nothing but promote racism. And finally, the presence of this elsewhere on WP does not justify it here. BTW, are you the anon who added it? -- Gnetwerker 09:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's interesting. So if The Bell Curve isn't a reputable secondary source for you, then what would be? Of course I didn't add the material (I helped write the original version, so I would have just reinserted that), but in general, I will say that I am concerned with the repeated calls for (as Durova put it) "an unreasonably high standard of evidence" to substantiate a literary subject.


 * This is more out of concern for the opposing POV than anything else. If we raise the standard for references to be too high, then it will be completely impossible to find references good enough to substantiate Human Fetishist's POV. This is my personal opinion based on my knowledge of and familiarity with the published articles in journals for Asian American studies. --Wzhao553 19:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Feminists"
I removed this para from the "Stereotypes" section"
 * Some feminist critics have argued that sexualization of Asian women is a subset of what they believe is a greater media prejudice against women in general. They argue that beauty requirements for actresses are much greater than those for men, and contend that attractive women often get paired on-screen with unattractive men but not vice-versa.

The problems with this are manifest, but mostly center around the reference. It:
 * Does not reference "Asian fetish" or even Asians;
 * The journalist writing it is not a (recognized) "feminist critic"; and
 * It is an opinion piece, and in any case a Primary source.

-- Gnetwerker 19:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
As the discussion here seems to be proceeding endlessly, but in smaller and smaller circles, I have undertaken a cleaning of the article, removing a number of sentences that have been listed as for a long time, removing sections without citations, and reducing the confusing mish-mash between the "popular terminology" section (which is essentially what anyone who googles for "Asian fetish" will get -- porn), and the "Social Activist" section, which is what Wzhao represents as his POV (overtly, see his Talk page). This will go (perhaps) some way to address Human Fetishist's concerns, but I doubt all of the way (as he indicates the article should be removed). Feel free to edit this all to hell, but please do not simply revert. -- Gnetwerker 19:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. Weren't you the one who wrote, "An Internet search[1] for the term will yield a mix of the term used by activists and references to pornography sites." --Wzhao553 20:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Wzhao553, and you have an entire section devoted to this usage. The intro says (paraphrasing): "3 uses: popular, activist, and academic", and the "popular" section starts ... "aside from the use by activists". So what exactly is your problem with this? -- Gnetwerker 20:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Insofar as cleanup is concerned, I'd like the term "Asian American" to be written consistently without a hyphen. I base this preference on the precedent established here: Category_talk:Asian_American-related_topics --Wzhao553 20:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem with that. See below on the real problem. -- Gnetwerker 20:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wzhao553, can you explain why you insist that the social activism terminology to occur in 'three places: You are straining my good faith, and I wonder if you might not be simply pushing you POV to make this article primarily about Asian American social activism. Shall I add a section on pornography to the social activism section? -- Gnetwerker 20:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The intro;
 * 2) The "popular terminology" section; and
 * 3) The "activism" section?


 * I don't understand why a social activism section exists. Isn't the social activism usage a subset of the popular usage? --Wzhao553 20:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No, as you have said yourself previously in this discussion, social activists (such as yourself) have adopted the term, and given it a precise set of meanings, supported by your own internal literature. Your definitions are distinct/disjunct fom the dictionary definition. While they draw on the academic usage, they go far beyond it in scope and application. Therefore, it must be kept separate, or confusion and POV will ensue. -- Gnetwerker 20:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe my knowledge of Asian American studies is a bit rusty, but weren't Asian Americans the ones who first coined the term "Asian fetish"? As I recall, the pornographic usage adopted the Asian American term, not vice versa. --Wzhao553 21:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you would need to provide a citation for that. The use in pornography goes back at least to the 1960s, and since it is rooted in the Freudian sense, it would seem to therefore go back to the 19th century. -- Gnetwerker 21:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Where did the citations section go? --Wzhao553 21:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Typo. Now fixed. -- Gnetwerker 21:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The use in pornography actually goes back to the 90's. The use by Asian American authors goes back to the 80's. It has used in discussions about pornography of the late 19th century and onward, but that's not exactly the same thing as actually using it in the 19th century and onward. --Wzhao553 01:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, as I noted, the use in pornography is directly linked to the Freudian usage, which it is in fact a misuse of, and this vastly pre-dates the activist use. -- Gnetwerker 01:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to provide citations which support this statement. Until then, it shouldn't be in the article. --Wzhao553 03:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would be the dictionary and the entire contents of Sexual fetishism. What about that do you not understand? -- Gnetwerker 03:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's see. You said that pornography involving Asian women was termed "Asian fetish pornography" since the 60's. I said that pornography involving Asian women was not termed "Asian fetish pornography" until the 90's. It then becomes your job to prove that pornography involving Asian women was referred to as "Asian fetish pornography" since before the 90's. --Wzhao553 03:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Not until you prove your point. I am not making a pro-active statement about the origin of the word, simply using its dictionary definition and etymological derivation. You are referring to an interest group's coinage and attempt to coopt. I would think the burden of proof belongs on you. -- Gnetwerker 03:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My point is that the pornographic sense derived from the literary sense. My proof is that the term "Asian fetish" was not used to refer to pornography involving Asians until after Asian American authors started using the term. What about that do you not understand? --Wzhao553 03:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand the point you are making, I just believe it to be incorrect. As of now, the article does not take a position on who started using the term in what way. It is clear, as I pointed out, that the term "fetish" as applied to pornography dates back at least to the 1960s (I am afraid I am not near a library at the moment and my reference sources are somewhat thin on the subject of porn, but in the fullness of time a  source can be found). I think that a focus on Asians in porn dates back at least as far, and took a notable uptick during the Vietnam war (ibid). However, as none of this is sourced, it is not in the article, just as your contrary position is not. However, you youself supplied this quote:
 * "Kim has argued that the stereotype of Asian women as submissive sex objects has ... fostered increased demand in ... ethnic-fetish pornography."

So it would appear that the connection between "ethnic-fetish pornography" and Asian American social commentators is a sourced one. -- Gnetwerker 06:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that it was Howrealisreal who supplied that quote. --Wzhao553 06:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you didn't supply it, but have the reference to quote the page numbers, perhaps you can provide a direct quote. You removed the previously-used phrase "ethnic-fetish pornography". Are you saying that phrase does not appear in the source? If it isn't about Asian fetish, it doesn't belong on the page. If it is, it is relevant to what it was sourcing. -- Gnetwerker 07:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Academic vs. Postcolonial
There is no reason to change "Academic terminology" to "Postcolonial terminology". First, the particular branch of academic theory is identified not only in the intro, but in the first sentence of the section. Second, most readers will not know what "Postcolonial" terminology is -- we need to label the section something much more straightforward. If there are candidates other than "Academic", please propose them, but putting in the name of an obscure sub-discipline of an itself obscure field is silly. As you, Wzhou, seem to consider yourself an expert on the subject, feel free to add properly sourced material to the section as you have done, but I think the clarity of the overall article will suffer it the academic discussion creeps out into the article as a whole. This is the stuff that previous commentators here have dubbed "unreadable". -- Gnetwerker 02:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Major problems
This article still has major problems that need to be addressed, besides the POV issues: On the other hand, I think that if these things were addressed, we would at least have an article that conforms to Wikipedia standards, whether or not it is something to be proud of. -- Gnetwerker 02:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The intro is far too long, and goes beyond summarizing the contents into taking a position. Regardless of the article content, it needs to be shorter.
 * 2) The "Stereotypes" section go beyond explaining enough of the stereotypes to clarify the activism position: they are mini-articles in themselves. We have cut them down somewhat, but they still have undue weight in the article.
 * 3) While many have been removed, there are still a number of unsourced statements. Ultimately this is somewhat inevitable, especially since several sources cannot be independently verified (because of their obscurity), but we should keep this to a minimum.

National Review article
Here is a link to yet another op-ed piece on the subject, this one from the National Review! -- Gnetwerker 07:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Bob Jones University?
Perhaps some mention of the rule against interracial dating (not sure if it's still active) at BJU, which was based on a relationship between asian and caucasian students, should be mentioned? --NEMT 05:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That rule no longer exists. And it was initiated to discourage primarily black-white relationships.--ThreeAnswers 15:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's already mentioned in interracial marriage, which is probably a better place for it than here. As ThreeAnswers mentioned, it was targeted for black-white relationships, but was also used for white-Asian relationships.  So their rule had more to do with interracial couples than with racial fetishes in particular. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, the BJU rule had little connection to either Asians or fetishes. -Will Beback 05:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

More on Sex Crime stats
I don't know who added the line (supported by the DoJ's "Hate Crimes Reported by Victims and Police. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report") that Asians were the most targeted group for hate crimes, but it is wrong. Reading the report, it contains the quote I listed there, that "there is no significant difference ... by racial group". The editor who added it read a table that listed 1.4 for "Other" (which includes both American Indians and Asians), and didn't read the sentence above it. Not only is the difference not statistically significant, but the number includes American Indians, who have the highest rates of crime victimization, for reasons that I doubt anyone would ascribe to an "Asian fetish". -- Gnetwerker 23:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Anthropological section - 40% of the voters wanted to keep it
There was no consensus about not including it.Polls only should help in decision making (wiki policy, s. Wzhao533's comment above). This section written by Wzhao533 and initiated by me is 100% correct, it can easily be verified in works of many of the highest authorities in the field, additionally the findings are according to common sense.Baker wrote the most detailed book on race in the history of anthropology, Knußmann is the author of the only recent manual on physical anthropology worldwide (!), Ashley Montagu was one of the most popular anthropologists of all times. Gnetwerker, infinity0 and assistance Prof. Steve Rubenstein deny these facts due to their particular interests obviously: Mr. Rubenstein is a Jew
 * It is always nice to know that our society is free enough that even anti-Semites can say what they think (even under the cloak of anonymity). Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * True enough, Slrubenstein. His freedom to spout garbage, however, doesn't require the rest of us to listen to it. He's free to say what he "thinks" in a form appropriate to such rantings. Wikipedia is not one. (And incitement to harm others, which this fellow has fallen just short of, should not be protected as free speech in any case.) Natsume Soseki 14:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

and fears support for views such as Prof. MacDonald's on Boasianism as a harmful ideology to the West.Examining Mr. Rubenstein own works (e.g. his works on the Shuar in Brazil could be labeled historical more than anthropological). Or more precise for the ones interested in physical anthropology : the racially Brasilid-Andid Shuar80.138.136.143 13:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Proof enough that you haven't read them. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC). Ah...you did really include physical anthropology ?80.138.136.143 13:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

show that he never dealt with physical anthropology at all and it is questionable if he has enough knowledge about it as he maybe never had any contact with physical anthropology during his studies due to the Boasian elimination of the whole science in America.Infinity0 is a 16 year old Chinese boy who did not like the penis size statistics about Mongolids obviously. But wikipedia shall not serve any particular interests but the public. And gnetwerker, despite of his helpless own contradictory re-editing (!) and removing statements about racial paedomorphosis (s. article history, Wzhao533 informed us about it), seems to be a leftist not able to fully appreciate the anthropology section obviously due to reasons named by me before. Durova, the American soldier virago (according to her own statements), is of course against physical anthropology as the 21.century shall not be hindered to become the century of the dispossession of the male Whites.80.138.191.230 10:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm hurt; why am I not included, as an obvious leftist teenaged Chinese Jew with a small penis and a virago complex? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls! -- Gnetwerker 17:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Real vote count
Physical anthropology: 9 keep votes - however, Wzhao and I have both since changed our views to the section to DELETE; two users were from forums, and have not edited since; their votes to not count. That leaves 5 keep votes against 13 delete votes - 28% of votes. Gnetwerker did obviously not change as he re-edited the crucial statement about racial paedomorphosis recently but denying this later (see above).Wzhao533 informed us about it about 2 weeks ago stating again "that he never had anything against the inclusion of the material".

The role of testosterone: 6 keep votes - three of which are IPs, probably both you, one of the "forum users" from above, against 14 delete votes, one of which was the other "forum user" from above, giving 3 keep votes against 13 delete votes - 19% of votes.

So, it is not actually 40%, but 28% and 19% respectively, and all of the "keep" votes apart from you have since abandoned the discussion. -- infinity  0  18:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't believe this discussion is still going on about that ridiculous racist anthropology section. I haven't checked in on this article for several months now and that same German racist troll is still here.  Unbelievable.  This is the same nutjob that claims "Jews are trying to control Wikipedia".  Why hasn't the Wikipedia community done something about this troll? OneViewHere 21:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Freedom of speech? I dunno, but his IP is constantly changing, we can't actually block him effectively without blocking quite a few other users too. -- infinity  0  21:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I know that for craigslist, if a user constantly violates the craigslist terms of use, they will actually talk to the ISP to get that abusive user banned.OneViewHere 21:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've tried several time to get the vandal banned, but the admins won't touch it because the block of IPs he comes from is too big. They also won't semi-protect the page, as the number of vandalisms is purportedly too low (even though it averages over 1/day). Long live Wikipedia. -- Gnetwerker 23:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm....there's gotta be something we can do. This German user continues to re-insert his racist anthropology section into the article even through the Wikipedia community here has already reached a consensus on it's applicability to this article.  Given that, the article should be placed in semi-protection mode.  If this user continues to violate Wikipedia's terms of use, the Wikipedia admins CAN go to this user's ISP and have him banned.  ISP's generally frown on people who abuse their service.OneViewHere 17:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Defending my views
Wzhao533's (and he still hasn't anything against its inclusion)and my anthropology section are the only serious scientific part based on the highest authorities in the field. That infinityO evaluates and even denies the existence of Knußmann by counting google matches is ridiculous. Knußmann by the way is a strong leftist (believe or not) who strongly promoted animal rights, criticized nuclear power and was the president of the German Scientific Society (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft), the country's top (!) scientific association known worldwide where right-wingers never would be allowed.Furthermore , he was an important anthropological expert in the J.F.K. murder case who proved that two Watergate subverters (!) were possibly connected to the J.F.K. murder case. This has been no naive over-simplification of the world, there is much truth in it. Can there really be no end in history ? "Es gibt kein richtiges Leben im falschen."(Theodor W. Adorno, Frankfurt School)80.138.136.143 13:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Mr. Rubenstein denies that I have read his writing about the Shuar, but he has no proofs. Of course, because I have read it.
 * 2) Boasian anthropology is a kind of distorted sociology/history/politics. Physical anthropology has been dicredited  by the mainly Jewish top Boasians which has been  a great loss to science. Knußmann even was terrorized by leftists who were able to block his work  misunderstanding him as he was a liberal like them.That someone categorizes races  does not mean that he is a Neo-Nazi.
 * 3) The wiki article "Mongoloid" written by wiki leftists is just doing  this very same thing : giving racial types thus avoiding the correct names. It was not acknowledged when I improved this slightly. Once again: the leftist themselves are  categorizing races  but were angry when I wanted to improve this terminological hotch-potch a bit.This is contradictory.
 * 4) Gnetwerker first rejected racial paedomorphosis , then re-edited it, then denied this again.This is self-contradictory and shows he is incredulous
 * 5) Many comments were made by others about the undeniable facts of the Mongolids racial paedomrophosis ("go to a China town"), but everything was ignored by the leftists.
 * 6) As America is to weak to maintain the European bridgehead, European science will become free again when China becomes the only superpower in the world in 35 years. A natural  Eurasian alliance of the  EU, Russia and China will end Anglo-Zionists dominance forever. As Han nationalism (Sinocentrism) is highly xenophobic ("Western foreign devils", thanks to the opium wars e.g.)which cannot be altered in the foreseeable future (even Aridou Debito's subversion has  only superficial impact on Japan), the Chinese will not cooperate with Americans and Jews in the long run. The American subversion of China (Falun Gong is a CIA-controlled organization with its headquarters in New York (!),promoting a second Taiping revolt) will fail.Anglo-Zionists will perish themselves due to the sicknesses they  generated for the "denazification" of the world. In the moment, everybody in China is free to write freely about anthropological Western viragos like Prasso (who is envious of Asian womanhood and femininity ), about the Boasian-Jewish manipulation of science as it is done e.g. on "bbs.chinadaily.com.cn" and the malign influence of Jews especially on the city of Shanghai. No country in the world is freer than China.That a state of 1.3 billion peoples must be ruled with an iron fist is a general necessity. Even the false Einsteinian relativity theory can be criticized in China which is nearly impossible in the West (space is no matter, but merely a category of perception as Kant stated correctly destroying the Einsteinian nonsense). And it can be written freely that China as one of the 5 autochthonous civilizations (Shang culture at the Huang Ho)) has a great racial potential.So I am no White suprematist, I am a Chinese (!)suprematist.
 * 7) Truth cannot be found by democratic means. And it cannot be abolished or destroyed.Jewish power will decline in the long run. Mixing with gentiles, outcompeted by Asians (Harvard is a recent example), population decline (3.5 millions in the US in 2050), rising Anti-Semitism in the West due to the leftist-induced impoverishing of the Whites and the Muslim atomic threat to Israel (Mossad  experts admit remorsefully that they cannot control e.g. Iran in the long run) will further weaken them.Now the time has come for the glorious  race of the Han. Jewish hate propaganda like "Sky captain and the world of tomorrow" cannot change this.
 * 8) These geostrategist thinking is inspiring me to take the manichaistic notion of the eternal dualism into account again, the old Zarathustrian belief of the evil forces fighting with light.

Look, those opinions are all very well, but you can't insert them into a neutral encyclopedia, because they're only your views. And what's more, they are very minor and non-notable views, and the way you are inserting about 3-4 paragraphs into the article on them is undue weight. If you think you are correct, then go tell the world about it - in your own books. An encyclopedia isn't the place to publish original research. -- infinity  0  11:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you quote Adorno, but I thought you didn't like Marxists or neo-Marxists? -- infinity  0  11:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Adorno was part of the "false life" despite repeating the interesting Zarathustrian dualism. Ximin, you felt not comfortable with some of the anthro stuff, but I also present the Nordic virago stuff which no normal White suprematists would do or acknowledge (on Skadinet by the way the biggest anthropological page on the net they hated it when someone introduce the virago stuff; of course in this case it wasn't me as the White suprematists' reaction were foreseeable).Additionally, I believe that especially the war losses of intellegence in Europe were considerable higher than in China where there were also of course huge losses of humans in the 20th century porducing a White-Chinese IQ ratio 100-106 (in contrast maybe to the racial basic dispositions). We should not sacrifice truth to consensus as it is the underlying not-mentioned basic principle of wikipedia.There can be also consensus on bull. You wrote, Ximin, that you want to study at a famous university. If you go e.g. to Harward you will recognize that Jewish professors and students are favouring each other irrespective of scientific qualities. As Jewish students have a mean IQ of 130 a basic quality is guaranteed of course. If you want to get to the top you should start just right now with me to alter the media and network with other Chinese who are maybe not prepared well-enough for the Jewish intellectual "invasion" of China. If ever Jewish Multi-Culturalism is established among the Han, China will perish.If you want your people and you to get high positions and outcompete the Jews who will do the same thing with China what they have done to the West then join us. There is no end in history as the Anglo-Zionists want to conquer space, too. It is not totally silly if an Iranian intellectual recently stated that the Jews want to conquer all the galaxies in the iniverse. Let us do real science. Einstein, Adorno,Derrida, Boas and Yahwe/God are subverters and diverters.Please don't adhere to them, Ximin. It will result in an ethic, financial and power catastrophe for you and your people !80.138.168.59 12:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, I don't agree with your views either. I'm just trying to explain to you as kindly as possible that we are not deleting your stuff because we disagree with what you think, but because your additions aren't appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. -- infinity  0  13:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Infinity, old friend - he is an anti-semite, coward, liar, and fraud. Please, just ignore him. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:30, 3 April 2006

-- Please don't feed the trolls!

Assistance Prof. Rubenstein (Athens, Ohio)is smear campaigning now (definitely !, see previous edit)-Don't feed the trolls !

(UTC)Ximin, Rubenstein is only a Jewish manipulator of science who will drive  science out of China, too, by introducing  thought control of the anthropological virago and race introducing the Boasian multi-culturalism, too (like David Aldwinckle in Japan), to start the Han's decline. While I have read his work about the Shuar online (pdf), he never made any attempt to read the Martin-Saller-Knußmann manual or Baker and denied the existence of the virago concept up to now in contrast to old Boasians like the Jew Ashley Montagu who propagated Mongolid racial paedomorphosis. Like me,Wzhao533 has nothing against the inclusion of the anthro sec he has written as it only presents " one line of reasoning ".Rubenstein is now smear campaigning showing his real face.And that he calls you a friend is grotesque. It is as grotesque as to call the Jewish people friends of the Americans or the Chinese as the Jews  ghettoized themselves in America up to now  after Irish, English, Germans and Russians have been assimililated for centuries,  destroying Irak now(Ximin, and please acknowledge that Jewish Neocons are leading this war like the "denazification" of the whole world). They now want to eat  Eurasia finally, the "earth island". Replace the word "America" by "the Jews and their American helpers" in the books of Brzezinsky, then you have it.As  the Jews feel that they are under pressure from China they make anti-Asian and anti-German propaganda just like in "Sky captain and the world of tomorrow".Nothing has changed, Ximin. While you know that I have a deep insight into Asian matters, Rubenstein even has no insight into easy matters of physical anthropology. While Rubenstein presents the Shuar in a positive light who lack any Western universal  ethos to show indirectly the white man how superfluous his culture is, other Jews present Chinese and Germans as monsters in "Sky captain and the world of tomorrow"" by this Dr. Totenkopf  & Chinese robot puppet bull.Ximin, if you want you and your people to be happy, rich and powerful, then think about my words again, please. 80.138.185.124 10:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, I never thought in a million years someone would be able to tie "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" into this discussion. Looks like our German friend is one pancake short of a stack.OneViewHere 17:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Not ridiculous at all, as there are many websites where this Jewish anti-Asian bias is discussed.80.138.185.124 18:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If you n o t disagree with me, then we have consensus. Yippie !(Concerning my debate with infinity0 about wikipedia standards, see above )80.138.168.59 19:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC) -- Please don't feed the trolls! -- Gnetwerker 19:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

'''I don't want to disturb your leftist round dance any more .Anthropology is too difficult for you obviously.I go to a home for the elderly in a few days where I have no internet access. Good bye.''' 80.138.185.124 23:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps he's going here -- Gnetwerker 00:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yay! I'm doing my "leftist round dance" right now.  A little electric slide with a running-man thrown in for good measure!OneViewHere 18:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Guys, it isn't our job to ridicule him. Just leave him alone; his opinions are his own - we have done what we have to, which is keep the article unbiased. -- infinity  0  19:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sigh, I guess you are correct. Leave it to a Boasian collaborator with illusions of Zarathustrian dualism to put a damper on racial paedomrophosis while denying me my right to a leftist round dance.OneViewHere 20:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Archive?
If the vandal is really gone, how about we archive this page and start with a clean slate? -- Gnetwerker 21:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Amen, brother! Sunray 21:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)