Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:23, 19 April 2010

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Multidel

Archives

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

Archives

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

Merge from User:Saranghae honey's sandbox

I liked these revisions, so I merged them into the history of this article, which gives GFDL-required attribution. The difference between this version and the former version is seen in this diff. Cool Hand Luke 05:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't like the changes. removed a the mail-order bride section for no reason. Still presents the Fisman opinionated article as a study. The WP:LEAD is pushing a POV. White men are not the only ones who can have an asian fetish. But you already added it anyway. 05:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkguy (talk • contribs)

Didn't we discuss WP:FRINGE already? They should not be brought back without reliable sources. миражinred (speak, my child...) 23:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As you can see User:Crossmr the mail-order bride section was removed without reasons initially. And then it was removed because of the WP:FRINGE but there were multiple sources. the WP:FRINGE was for the yale newspaper source. The other sources are not the yale newspaper so you need to stop removing valid entries backed by valid source until you can discredit them. Otherwise you are WP:OWNing this article. This is consistent with the 5 failed deletion attempts on this article. Tkguy (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was removed with a reason. . The source was questioned.--Crossmr (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The argument was made by a person using an ip address to edit the page. So the argument can't be taken seriously. So therefore your argument can't be taken seriously. But I have to admit I don't have a direct quote from the source to prove that it's not a valid source. and you don't either so you really can't just write it off with 100% certainty unless of course you are biased. But still I removed the source and added a new source. so now you have to discredit the two remaining sources. If you choose to remove this valid entry then you are WP:EWing and I will report you. Tkguy (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the history you'll see that the IP is very likely computer1200 who accidentally logged out as within a couple minutes he made 4 more edits to the article. Whether its an IP or not, the article was made that the source doesn't support it. As for proving it WP:V under burden of proof, you want to include the material, you need to prove it, not the other way around. Threats don't get your material kept in the article. And if you notice below an editor raised issues with the text of the mail order bride bit with or without source back in February.--Crossmr (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I did put in the quote. but like you, somebody deleted the quote.

Phoebe Eng acknowledges that Asian fetish is what largely driving the mail-order bride industry in America. She wrote the following,

Sheridan Prasso devotes a whole section on mail-order brides in her "The Asian Mystique: Dragon Ladies, Geisha Girls, & Our Fantasies of the Exotic Orient"

Tkguy (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how either of those quotes supports what you're trying to insert. Both of those are simply stating a fact. The first doesn't even mention that they are asian wives, nor does it mention anything about stereotypes. the second one simply lists some statistics on the amount of websites and couples who get married, but again doesn't say anything about what drives those. Unless you're leaving out parts of the quotes, there is nothing there that supports that text at all.--Crossmr (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sheridan Prasso book is titled "The Asian Mystique" because it's dealing with the effects of stereotypes that the western world have to towards asian females.

Phoebe Eng included this entry in her book in a section titled "Asian Women = SEX".

Nobody writes an entire book on Asian fetish and use the term Asian fetish in every sentence. Apparently that is what you are claiming is needed. The Salon Article does not even use the word fetish. Tkguy (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make the claim that the mail order bride business is supported by stereotypes you need a clear citation stating exactly that, not your conjecture. Neither of those say the industry is supported by it, they simply list some facts without stating any opinion about it.--Crossmr (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To write that a book titled "The Asian Mystique: Dragon Ladies, Geisha Girls, & Our Fantasies of the Exotic Orient" that includes am entire section on mail-order brides does not intended to make the connection between it and the stereotypes that people have of asian females, means that you have no intention of having a constructive discussion. In books that spans 100's of pages, the author will not use the term Asian fetish, stereotypes, in every sentence. That would be a horrible book. So you are pretty much saying only short magazine articles are allowed on this article. You have no point. And I find it interesting how you keep trying to come up with completely different issues you have with my entries. Tkguy (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Your assumptions of bad faith aside, many conclusions, theories, etc may be put forth in a book. If there is an entire section on mail-order brides, provide some text that explicitly supports the claim you're trying to make. The only thing you've quoted is a short fact.--Crossmr (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The wording, "sexual preference"

Computer1200 (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)This has been debated, but I have a problem with defining said "Asian Fetish" as only "sexual." If we are allowing this term to be part of Misplaced Pages, then we need to be clear that it is very rare that it becomes a clinical issue, replete with obsessive behavior. Further, many times the slang term simply refers to attraction to Asians. BUT: it certainly possible for the attraction to not be sexual. For example, someone might really love said tendency of Asian women to "create harmony in a family" or navigate cultural divides. Whatever the nature of the attraction, it is definitely not always sexual.

I suggest that we somehow make it clear that it is possible for the "Asian fetish" to be sexual in nature, but -- because we have made it clear that sometimes the term is referring to simple attraction -- we need to stress that sometimes it is not sexual.

I had just read an article about Clint Eastwood and how his recent foray into films about asians was referred to as an "Asian fetish" it certainly had no sexual connotation.--Crossmr (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is essentially about the use of the term to describe sexual attraction towards Asians, so the lead needs to reflect that. Its use as a slang term is not generally about non-sexual relationships, and miniature carvings, Clint Eastwood films or financial products are not the focus of the article.

There may be men who 'love said tendency of Asian women to "create harmony in a family" or navigate cultural divides', but the attraction is a sexual one - i.e., they are interested in a sexual relationship, not a relationship between friends or drinking buddies. --hippo43 (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the deal: Your anecdotal observation and assertion that said "asian fetish" is ALWAYS AND ONLY sexual is not good enough. The burden of proof is on you to find a credible source that asserts that this "fetish" is ALWAYS AND ONLY sexual. Until you can do that, it is coming out. Do NOT change it again unless you bring it to discussion first. Further, you are not the ultimate authority about what said "fetish" means to everybody. Again, until you can find credible proof from a credible source for your assertion that it is always sexual, it doesn't belong anywhere in this article, let alone in the lead. Computer1200 (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's the deal: your anecdotal observation and assertion about what is good enough is a pile of crap. The source used for the definition in the lead is clear: it refers to "White men who, for whatever reasons, pursued and dated exclusively or predominantly Asian/Asian American women." Rather than quote the source verbatim, I used the words "sexual preference", which is an accurate summary. If other editors prefer to use the wording from the source, I'm not too bothered. None of the other sources referenced later in the article refer to "Asian fetish" as anything else. If you believe that the term "Asian fetish" has meaning in other contexts (and it may well do) then you need to supply reliable sources for that view. Until you can, it is going in. Nowhere did I say that the meaning is "ALWAYS AND ONLY" sexual. Do NOT change it again unless you bring it to discussion first. Further, you are not the ultimate authority about what said "fetish" means to everybody. Again, until you can find credible proof from a credible source for your assertion that it is anything other than sexual attraction, it doesn't belong anywhere in this article, let alone in the lead. --hippo43 (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither of these sources seem to be using it to refer to a sexual attraction. Asian fetish is used to denote an interest or obsession with things related to asia as well., this source uses it to talk about architecture. unfortunately the text isn't in the preview, but it shows up in the google search result Others manifest Carroll's Asian fetish, with flat, scrolled roofs off Japanese temples that lends them a Hasbro-goes- East aspect. Problem is, crossing childlike gee-wizardry with the reverent forms of Asian architecture makes for a wicked culture clash. The stepped base of a public. This source would imply that an asian fetish can be confused for an interest in asian things. This salon article doesn't use asian fetish to refer to a sexual attraction either . Nor does this NYTimes article . This source uses it to refer to both women and culture. Here is the Article about clint eastwood's "asian fetish" . There is plenty of reliable sources using the term to not refer to a sexual attraction, but rather refer to an interest or obsessive interest in things asian. While plenty of people do associate it with a sexual interest (predominately in women) it is not only that.--Crossmr (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)`

My point is this: the idea that said "fetish" is always sexual requires a credible, scientific study, in the same vein that the Columbia study debunks the myth of "asian fever" among white men -- or at least the degree. We saw in that study that a lot of the reason you see a lot of asian women with white men is not just because of the white male "obsession with asian women," but in fact it is related a lot to the asian women and her preferences. The main point with the columbia study is that, yes, maybe there is attraction for asian women, but not to the degree that the asian community wants to mythologize this attraction, and then demonize white men. One of the main points of contention with the article from way back when is how it makes sweeping, unfair generalizations about non-Asian men. This idea that a focus or interest in Asia is always somehow connected to a white male desire to have sex with asian women is certainly one of those times. Again, your anecdotal observation that "the attraction is a sexual one - i.e., they are interested in a sexual relationship," (see above) does not suffice. That is simply what you believe. Interest in, or study of, Asian things does not have to be fetishist, sexual, obsessive, or out of balance. It can be healthy, normal, and useful, even when it is in relation to women. In the end, you must have a credible source that is scientific and proves that this idea of "asian fetish" is ALWAYS related to sex. Until then it cannot be part of any definition. Computer1200 (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Even with a credible study it would be immaterial at this point as there are reliable sources using the term in other contexts. It seemed like you were replying to hippo, so I hope you don't mind if I change your indent, if you were replying to me, feel free to change it back. With several reliable sources using the term to refer to an interest or obsession with all things Asian, not just women by white guys, no amount of studies or other reliable sources could change the definition as there will always be those reliable sources using the term in that context. So any definition has to include those uses.--Crossmr (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

While googling, I also came across this possible change to the definition . Russell Leong seems to indicate in this book that Asians can have an asian fetish. He doesn't flat out state it, but when asked the question he answers "And, yes, I think that Asian Americans also internalize a lot of these ideas." which would indicate agreement with the question to some degree.--Crossmr (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Academic articles

I restored details on the Columbia study that got deleted for some reason. It says some important things: Men, of all races had no racial preferences amongst women, but women of all races strongly preferred men of their own race. Also, white males and asian females were the most common inter-racial coupling, but because the asian women avoided Middle Eastern men. I also clarified that the study was NOT reprinted in slate, that the results were simply summarized there. Finally I retitled the section since the section discusses two studies, not just one.--Work permit (talk) 04:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Eng Material

TKguy is up to his tricks again with the Eng material. The citation is referencing a 28 page swath of the book, and TKguy is using that to make blanket statements throughout the article. TKguy has proven himself to be desperately untrustworthy in the past, and I recommend that we enforce vigorously the need for his references to be checked and double-checked for not only accuracy, but misrepresentation of the content, context, and the intent of the original material. For example, when he referenced the Yelloh-Girls book, his representation was completely wrong about the website, and therefore his use of the content was deceptive. We need to be careful.

I will be taking down content that he is using like this, and I recommend that others keep a close eye on his sources. Computer1200 (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I see it's ok to use sources like "How to Attract Asian Women" and questionable sources like AsianParent.com. How about the Slate article from an Economist that is taking half the article and being presented fraudulently as the study from Columbia. In fact you are the one trying to present this slate article as the study. The study does not deal with Asian fetish. It deals with interracial dating. The content of the slate article is just the author's opinion and you are presenting those opinions as if they were part of the results of the study. Which they were not.

This article been through 5 AFD attempts and it's because of people like you.

And you have the audacity of accusing me of misrepresenting Eng's book? We need the quotes from her book because her book as have been grossly misrepresented in this article. minor points are presented as the major points and major points are ignored by people like you. Here are actual quotes from her book.

So yes this is a valid source for the sentence you keep trying to remove regarding service men seeking the services of asian prostitutes.

You have absolutely no point. Tkguy (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I love how you call me audacious with your twisted history with this article. You very clearly misrepresented the reference to said site, and you got busted. Be warned that I am watching this article daily. It will never become your mouthpiece to bash non-Asians every again. Trust me well on this. Computer1200 (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Asian fetish

User:Crossmr the word fetish does not mean preference. it means a obsession. However, it's used in some source implies a preference and for some source it implies an obsession. to just go with the preference as part of the definition when many valid source on the contrary paints it as an obsession and the very definition of fetish is obsession is revealing an obvious bias in editing. I will change this back to include the word obsession in the definition if you can't prove that all the valid entries do not portray it as an obsession then you have no right to change my entry. Obviously a WP:OWN issue here. Tkguy (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

And in some sources its used to be an interest, as I pointed out in the article that talks about Clint Eastwood's interest in asia in his films. I don't think anyone would accuse him of having an obsession. The definition of a fetsh isn't obsession.

1. an object regarded with awe as being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or as having magical potency.

2. any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion: to make a fetish of high grades.

3. Psychology. any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.

I don't see obsession anywhere in there. But like the word "irony" modern casual usage has caused the term "Asian Fetish" to stray frm the dictionary term of "fetish".--Crossmr (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is that you are using the word "some" not all. If all valid sources stated that it's just a preference then this is valid. however, many many many sources considers it an obsession. webster defines it as

And I bring up the aFd because you are deleting valid content WP:AfD. It's a very logical and valid point. You are violating WP:DUE by forcing your preference definition. My definition acknowledges the preference opinion. So it's a better compromise than yours. BTW there were many who participated in the WP:AfD so this notion that only a consensus overrules all is moot. I am adding the definition back in. if you remove it I will have to report you for edit warring Tkguy (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again an article surviving AfD isn't a comment on the content. Threats and edit summaries which violate WP:OWN don't get your version kept. None of those AfDs even mention the word obsession so there was no consensus formed for your version.--Crossmr (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Fetish means obsession. having a bunch of people who want nothing more than to delete content from this page and claiming that they can form a consensus with regards to the content of the article, is a joke. I did not delete the preference definition and just wanted to get the word obsession in with the definition. as you obviously want so much to make asian fetish out to be something not racist and harmless. You clearly are WP:OWNing this article.Tkguy (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I've quoted the dictionary already, once again I don't see obsession anywhere in there. If I've missed it, feel free to highlight the text. You've been told before to assume good faith you should probably go read the policy again. You're also bordering on personal attacks if you haven't been pointed to that before, and I feel like you have, go familiarize yourself with that too.--Crossmr (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not hopeful anything can be done with this article. Basically, it seems to be a concept a lot of people understand, but nobody's really studied, and thus the article is being warred about until some sources that have looked at it in depth show up. For most, it's analogous to foot fetishism or fat fetishism; the term seems to be commonly understood as "obsessive sexual fixation on Asian women" as it is defined in "For Asian women, 'fetish' is less than benign" http://web.archive.org/web/20050515083544/http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=29233 and "Made in the USA: Rewriting Images of the Asian Fetish" http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=uhf_2006 The definitions of fetish: "regarded with awe," "eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect or devotion" and "habitual erotic response or fixation" are all pretty good synonyms for obsession, but somehow some people aren't seeing that, and I can't understand how. The OED also uses "Something irrationally reverenced," "an object, a non-sexual part of the body, or a particular action which abnormally serves as the stimulus to, or the end in itself of, sexual desire." Definitions of obsession include "The control, actuation, or tormenting of a person from without by an evil spirit; the fact of being so controlled or affected; an instance of this. Now rare, "An idea, image, or influence which continually fills or troubles the mind; a compulsive interest or preoccupation; the fact or state of being troubled or preoccupied in this way," "Psychol. A recurrent, intrusive, inappropriate thought, impulse, or image causing significant distress or disturbance to social or occupational functioning; (also) the condition characterized by having such thoughts, impulses, or images." That upenn article speaks of asian women as objectified and the men rendered unable to pursue other relationships due to their fetish, and uses the terms "racial fetishism" and "commodity fetishism" which are maybe more aligned with sociology, culture studies, and political theory than psychology, but still involving that. This phenomenon is something distinct from asiaphilia, which is more in the nature of an area of interest, a hobby, lacks the same degree of problematicism, and is in the culture generally, not a sexual objectification of race. I don't know what can be done here. More Wikiproject involvement? An RfC? Mediation, arbitration, another AfD? Шизомби (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD is only useful if there isn't suppose to be an article of that title. The fact is that asian fetish is also used in articles simply to indicate an interest (in the case of eastwood), and the word fetish has also lost meaning in modern terms where casually it just means someone is interested in something at some point in time. Asian fetish isn't simply about women and has been used to describe architecture and film choices.--Crossmr (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's possible there isn't supposed to be an article of this title. One problem with what you're saying is that you're doing WP:SYNTHESIS. The articles that discuss "asian fetish" as I described above do not call it a preference or describe it as being in any way benign. The ones you cite don't describe it as a compulsion or as in any way harmful. It's not the same concept. The Eastwood article you cite, a review of Gran Torino by a newspaper film critic, is not about an "asian fetish," that's something it mentions in passing. It does not define the term, nor does it explain why it was applied to Mr. Eastwood, who as far as I know does not date asian women, collect asian things or what have you, so it doesn't seem to fit either definition. The limit of his involvement with the culture seems to be his two WWII films, Gran Torino and doing film publicity there sometimes. You're extracting a trivial mention and combining it with significant coverage which is a problem per the WP:General notability guideline and which constitutes WP:Original research. There's also a WP:JARGON problem here; "Pay particular attention to terms for which the technical meaning is different from the commonly understood meaning"; you're combining a technical usage with a layperson's usage. With regard to "the word fetish also lost meaning in modern terms," that sounds like original research too; I don't see a source for it. If you bring in a source that says that which is not discussing the asian fetish, that would probably again be synthesis. Шизомби (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

If the title is frequently used in reliable sources and discussed, then yes there is supposed to be an article on it. It survived AfD 5 times for that reason. What the content is supposed to be isn't the realm of AfD. The film critics usage shows that in everyday language has other meanings as its obviously talking about his foray into making a couple films that have an asian setting. In searching I've also seen the term applied to architects who frequently use an asian style in their works. Notability applies to articles as a whole, not their individual content, the term is clearly notable and that is where notability ends. individual content is governed by WP:NPOV. Jargon is irrelevant here. Its application is pointing towards avoiding using slang words in explaining something, like in the difference between saying a team scored a "short handed goal" vs a "shorty". In that particular case what you cited is talking about making sure you don't use a technical word with one meaning which has a commonly understood different meaning when explaining something without explaining how you're using it. And Synthesis refers to taking works from multiple published sources and combining them to reach conclusion C. Taken individually the source demonstrates that not all reliable sources use the term "Asian Fetish" to refer to people who are obsessed with Asian women as some people want to claim. Unless you really think that film critic was claiming that Eastwood is constantly lusting after asian women.--Crossmr (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You're not listening to me, the sources you're citing, or even yourself. More later. Шизомби (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I read what you wrote. You cited a bunch of things that have nothing to do with the situation at hand. The fact is the term is used by reliable sources to mean something other than someone with an obsession, specifically someone with an obsession in asian women. Do a lot of sources use it to mean that? Yes, but wikipedia shouldn't be presenting it solely with that meaning.--Crossmr (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the problem: "Asian fetish" is used by different people to mean different things. Therefore, I propose that we responsibly include the different uses in the definition, rather than trying to shove everything into ONE definition.

However, concerning the derogatory, racist, and highly controversial usage that TKguy and others are espousing, I do not dispute that an unhealthy fetishistic behavior exists, but it must be said very clearly that this kind of behavior is RARE, and that two people from two different racial backgrounds can have an honest, balanced, healthy relationship. The definition should make it clear that: 1) most men who have relationships with Asian women do not have "asian fetish;" 2) a "fetish" implies unhealthy obsession with an object used to gain sexual pleasure. You absolutely must clearly point out that this is a rare, clinical diagnosis. Computer1200 (talk)17:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

This has been a very frustrating article to deal with. One wonders if WP needs a marker for largely hopeless articles, a category opposite Featured and Good, that might help attract more editors to improve it. AFAIK, there are no dictionaries or encyclopedias that have entries for "asian fetish," "asiaphile" or "asiaphilia" except for Misplaced Pages, (Wiktionary:Asiaphile "A person interested in Eastern culture" or "(derogatory) A Caucasian male with sexual interests in Asian women."), and Urban Dictionary. These latter two do not have attestation and are in any case not reliable sources. Using the search terms *philia and *phile, the only -phil* words it appears the Oxford English Dictionary has regarding nations, continents, or ethnicities are Anglophilia "Admiration of or friendship towards England (or Britain), its language, customs, etc.", Europhile "of or designating a person who admires (continental) Europe and its culture; (also) of or designating a person who is in favour of (greater) cooperation with fellow member countries of the European Union; (b) n. such a person," Europhilia "love of or admiration for (continental) Europe; (Brit. Polit.) enthusiasm for (greater) cooperation between the member countries of the European Union," Francophilia "Friendliness to France," and Sinophile/Sinophilia "a lover of China or things Chinese; also as adj. and Sinophilia, love of China or that which is Chinese." I also found Russophile and Russophilism "tendency to admire or favour Russia, Russian methods, policy, etc." under Russo-. I am not sure how to readily determine whether any encyclopedias do. No dictionary appears to have an entry for Asia- as a prefix. Thus "asian fetish," "asiaphile," and "asiaphilia" might be said to be neologisms. That said, I think probably sufficient attestation exists that could be added to the Wiktionary dictionary definition. Just by dictionary definitions, -phile is defined as "Forming nouns and adjectives with the sense ‘(a person) loving the person or thing denoted by the first element’." -philia is "Forming abstract nouns with the senses": "Tendency to," "Love of or liking for," "sexual interest in," and "relating to the staining of cells with a particular dye." We can tentatively suppose Asiaphile/ia means "a person loving Asia or things Asian," or "love of or liking for Asia or things Asian" or "sexual interest in Asia or things Asian," since the word appears to be constructed on that model. However, we could be misled by our assumptions.

The question remains as to whether there are sufficient sources for an encyclopedia article (or articles) on "asian fetish," "asiaphile" and/or "asiaphilia" or articles on substantially different things these words refer to, if there are substantially different things. Misplaced Pages has Anglophile, Armenophile, Austrophile, Francophile, Germanophilia, Hellenophile, Hibernophile, Hispanophile, Italophile, Japanophile, Lusophilia, Scotophile, Sinophile, Slavophile all of which seem to come under Allophilia or Xenophily. Of course WP:Other stuff exists isn't a reason for creating or keeping articles on analogous things. Theoretically, one could create such an article for every continent, every nation that has ever existed, every sub-region, every ethnicity, religion, etc., e.g. Ameriphile (actually, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Amerophilia and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Americophilia or Islamophile (I see that last was actually created then deleted and see also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Islamophilia and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Islamophilia (second nomination)). And see also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Interracial fetish and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/German fetish. Additionally, at first glance most of these appear to be just Misplaced Pages:Dictionary definitions (except Slavophile, regarding an intellectual movement): indeed how much could one really say about them? However, I don't even want to get into addressing issues with them at this moment. It doesn't appear those others employ a "sexual interest in" use, though theoretically somebody could use it that way off WP; using it in or as the subject of an article on WP would require RS and all that jazz. My suspicion is that attestation for "-philia" or "fetish" used in a sexual sense with regard to a nation, etc. is going to be unique to Asia-, though I don't have a strong theory as to why that would be the case. In a bit I'll add here what I have been able to find with regard to definitions of the terms from reliable sources. I also need to review the old posts I made here in the archives, as indeed probably we should all be reviewing the archives. Шизомби (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If all "asian fetish," "asiaphile," and "asiaphilia" mean is "having a liking or preference for asian culture or people," it wouldn't seem that that merits an encyclopedia article. How would it be expanded from a mere dictionary definition? Additionally, has anyone explicitly defined it that way, and has it ever been addressed at any length, or only in passing? With regard to the movie review of Eastwood's Gran Torino, it only mentions "Asian fetish" in passing, literally parenthetically. It's also not clear to me if Richmond.com is a newspaper's website, or just an internet content provider, in which case even if it were an article specifically about "asian fetish," it would not constitute a reliable source. It's not clear who Mike Ward is, what his credentials are, whether he has an editor and so on. And again, Ward doesn't define the term. He doesn't appear to be using it in a sexual sense. However, he doesn't seem to be using it in the sense of "having a liking or preference for asian culture or people" either since Eastwood doesn't seem to have one. It's not clear what Ward means by it, and whether it represents something positive or negative to him.

These are some of the places where the term is both explicitly defined and discussed at some length:

• "Asian Americans face an insidious twist on the traditional antipathy toward 'Yellow': Asiaphilia. The fetishization of all things Asian in popular culture Asiaphilia is a deceptively benign ideological construct that naturalizes and justifies the systematic appropriation of cultural property and expressive forms created by Yellow people." Hamamoto, D. Y. (2000). Introduction: On asian american film and criticism. In D. Y. Hamamoto & S. Liu (Eds.), Countervisions: Asian american film criticism. (p.12) Temple University Press.
• Asiaphilia is "the covert racism that lurks within seemingly benign Euro-American expressions of fondness and attraction to people of color, specifically Asians and Asian Americans. In recent years there has been a boomlet in skin magazines published in the United States that cater to the Asiaphile. Asian Women, Oriental Dolls, Asian Beauties, Jade 18, and Oriental Women are representative of the specialty." Hamamoto, D. Y. (2003). White and wong: Race, porn, and the world wide web. In L. P. Gross, J. S. Katz, & J. Ruby (Eds.), Image ethics in the digital age. (pp. 249-51) University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, MN, USA.
• "Asian American women may have an easier time being accepted into the mainstream based upon a relationship that sees Asian American women as ultrafeminine and inferior to white heterosexual males. Evidence includes the overrepresentation of Asian American women in mainstream porn, their depiction in mainstream media as sex objects for white men, and the prevalence of the 'Asian fetish.' The greater acceptance of Asian American women is not because race does not matter for Asian American women, rather it reveals the necessity of looking at the intersectionality of race and gender when examining the experiences of Asian American women and men. In other words, the pairing of Asian American women and white men does not disrupt the normative heterosexual, white dominant, patriarchal hierachical order." Chen, E. W. C. (2009). Asian americans in sororities and fraternities: In search of a home and place. In C. L. Torbenson & G. S. Parks (Eds.), Brothers and sisters: Diversity in college fraternities and sororities. (p. 103). Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Pr.
• "Doubts and mistrust toward White males in these relationships arose from numerous encounters by Korean American and Asian American women with certain types of White men. In my study, many Korean American women encountered White men who, for whatever reasons, pursued and dated exclusively or predominantly Asian/Asian American women. These men were so common and identifiable that the women had special names for them; they were called 'Rice Kings' or 'Asianphiles,' or men with an 'Asian fetish' or 'Asian fixation.' Their motives and interests were highly suspect; the women perceived these men as demonstrating what Frank Chin and Jeffrey Paul Chan (1972) once regarded as classic examples of 'racist love.'" Pang, G. Y. (1998). Intraethnic, interracial, and interethnic marriages among korean american women. In Y. I. Song & A. Moon (Eds.), Korean american women: From tradition to modern feminism. (p. 134). Praeger Publishers.

• "some of the most crucial issues that Asian feminist jurisprudence confronts the portrayal of Asian women in pornography, the rise in popularity of mail-order brides, the 'Asian fetish' syndrome, and the underreported rates of sexual violence against Asian women, all through the context of White sexual imperialism." In the Michael Lohman case at Harvard University, "the institution treated the case as an isolated instance of a psychologically unstable man, Yin Ling Leung, organizational director of the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum ("NAPAWF"), contended that the University misidentified the problem. Leung argued that the Asian fetish syndrome triggered Lohman's behavior. Activists in the Asian American community complained about the fact that the University ignored how Lohman specifically targeted Asian women and clearly harbored a sexual fetish for them. For example, Leung said that to protect Asian American female students, the University should have been more 'culturally competent."' Leung further stated: 'Sexual assault of Asian women on college campuses is a major issue. You get a room of five Asian American women together, and they all have stories about sexual harassment.' Mainstream America shrugs off the notion of Asian fetishes, believing men who have such fetishes 'are harmless.' However, Leung warns, 'It's not as innocent as it looks.' Helen Zia, a Princeton graduate, commented: 'It's the image of Asian American women being exotic and passive and won't fight back and speak up. Predators think they have free rein with Asian American women.' White men display the 'Asian fetish' syndrome, a symptom of not only the desire for male dominance, but also the imported stereotype that Asian women want to be dominated. The mail-order bride industry flourishes, capitalizing on the 'Asian fetish.' Then, the overrepresentation of Asian women in pornography perpetuate the entire cycle of White sexual imperialism as experienced by Asian women today." Woan, S. (2007). White sexual imperialism: A theory of asian feminist jurisprudence. Wash. & Lee J. Civ. Rts. & Soc. Just., 14(Spring), 275-301. Leung is cited from "Lisa Wong Macabasco, Princeton Incident Shows Extreme Case of Asian Fetish, ASIANWEEK, Apr. 29, 2005, www.asianweek.com (search "Princeton Incident"; then follow "Princeton Incident Shows Extreme Case of Asian Fetish) (last visited Apr. 28, 2007) (detailing the arrest of Michael Lohman) (on file with the Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice)." The Lohman case is just one of the ones Woan discusses.

• "Asian Fetish" is a "type of discrimination" defined in a glossary as "Sexual desire towards people of Asian descent. The term has been defined as 'the sexual objectification of people of Asian descent, typically females, who are objectified and valued not for who they are as people, but for their race or perceptions of their culture." Ruiz, E. (2009). Discriminate or diversify. (p.83) Lothian, MD: PositivePsyche.Biz. This one looks self-published though.

This is a concept that can be written about in an encyclopedia entry. The definition "having a liking or preference for asian culture or people," could be mentioned to show that this is not the exclusive meaning of the term, but it does seem to be the only one that's been specifically written about. There's some other examples where it is used without being as explicitly defined, but still in the sense of Hamamoto, Chen and Pang, where college women like the ones Pang studied complain about men who have this fetish, the difficulty of knowing if someone is interested in them personally or whether they have been objectified by men interested only in the look of an Asian woman or what an Asian woman represents to them.

Regarding the comment above "it must be said very clearly that this kind of behavior is RARE, and that two people from two different racial backgrounds can have an honest, balanced, healthy relationship. The definition should make it clear that: 1) most men who have relationships with Asian women do not have "asian fetish;" 2) a "fetish" implies unhealthy obsession with an object used to gain sexual pleasure. You absolutely must clearly point out that this is a rare, clinical diagnosis." My suspicion is that this fetish is common (my hearing people talk about it, prevalence of often racist asian-themed pornography, sexual tourism in Asia, etc.), but that it represents a minority of people overall. Nowhere does anyone say a person can be clinically diagnosed with an "Asian fetish." I really don't know whether that is possible. However, you can't write anything like what you've written there unless you have sources to back it up. If instead it is your own impression or experience, your own original research, that is as irrelevant to the article as my own thoughts about it. Шизомби (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

When talking about a term you cannot limit yourself specifically to those people who only have written articles about is solely as definition. Look at the word "irony" for example. Modern usage has little to do with the technical definition and if our article on that contained no mention of the everyday usage, it would be woefully inadequate. Also if we're going to equate yellow fever and asiaphile with the term, then the definition and use needs to include all meanings of all those terms.

• Aucklander and Asiaphile Paul Hewlett, who was three days into a week... They don't seem to be identifying him as a sex tourist, and I can't really imagine he'd let them do as such.
• the google preview provides us with To his surprise, the uptight Asiaphile Gustav hates the monks' routine. I don't know if you've seen the movie, but there is nothing sexual about the characters interest in asia. His life is a mess and he wants to visit the monastery to help put it back together.
• Asiaphiles and history buffs may recognize...
• ...it's no wonder Komansky is an avid Asiaphile. I'm assuming businessweek isn't calling their CEO some kind of deviant?
• The rest are Asian Americans or "Asiaphiles" who have lived in Asia or picked up their language and cultural expertise in school.

I think it is quite apparent that "Asiaphile" seems to be use non-pejoratively far more often than "Asian Fetish" however if you google around you will see reliable sources also using that in a non-pejorative sense. Here is Time magazine using the term "Asian Fetish" in the context of movies and an interest in movies by asian filmmakers, or in an asian setting, etc

• Everyone has an Asian fetish at the moment. Can it be substantiated?

I do wonder about this. I think all Asian filmmakers are asking themselves this question. The film "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" did something few Asian projects had done: It had Americans take Asian cinema more seriously. It's terribly hard to predict what's going to happen from here on, but I do worry that it may remain a fetish. Also, once Americans start to become very familiar with Asian faces, it ceases to be new and exciting. He's talking about the interest in asian films because of their exotic appearance, not an sexual component.

• ...the owners of the tattoos take their Asian fetish, and the consequences of less-than-perfect knowledge, to a different level. are they referring to a sexual interest or a general interest in asia like the usage of asiaphile would suggest above? from the new york times
• from washington post, google preview gives us Others manifest Carroll's Asian fetish, with flat, scrolled roofs off Japanese temples that lends them a Hasbro-goes- East aspect. this in reference to architecture, from the washington post
• If I ask her about the Asian fetish, she swears up and down that she is not obsessing, but that she was one of us in a past life. do you think Salon is implying this mother has some sort of sexual fetish for her children?

etc etc. As for Richmond.com go down to the bottom. its an LLC and part of Media General Company. Which includes television stations, newspapers, etc. . More than reliable.--Crossmr (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You're continuing not to listen. I never said it only has a sexual meaning. I'm saying that the sexual meaning is the only meaning substantive enough to justify the existence of an article, in my opinion. You're also continuing to do original research and synthesis. You're continuing to cite things that only use the word briefly and then move on from it, not touching on an actual topic. You're supplying your own meaning for the word. Employees of the OED or similarly qualified people come up with definitions on the basis of usage and context, certainly. I don't believe we do that on Misplaced Pages, and as to how Wiktionary handles that, I'm really not sure. AIf all it means is "liking Asians and Asian things," how can you make an encyclopedia article about that? I did see the owner of Richmond.com. I didn't see information regarding editors, etc. A media company that owns newspapers and TV stations can also own an internet content provider. The reliability that may exist for their newspapers and TV stations is not conveyed to their other holdings. If Joe Reliablesource owns a blog site, and anybody can post on it, do all the posts by the public become as reliable as Mr. Reliablesource? I don't even understand why you're even trying to continue to make a case for citing to that site. It's a movie review on a non-notable site by a non-notable critic that uses "asian fetish" as an aside. Шизомби (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

And you're continuing to assume bad faith, that seems to be a trend around here. It doesn't matter if the reliable source using the term writes a dissertion on the word or not. Its an example of usage by reliable sources which indicates a broader definition to the term than what you'd like. There is nothing original research or synthesizing about that. It isn't synthesis or original research to say "Businesweek described a CEO of a company with an interest in the Asian markets as an asiaphile" If you read synthesis its clearly stating that you're taking two different ideas from two different sources and reaching a third conclusion. The same idea is being taken from all sources that the term is not being used with that meaning. As for richmond.com, you asked about, so I answered. The company that owns the site is a professional news organization and news provider. The site is one of many reliable sites, including the New York times, Time magazine, the washington post, etc that all use the term in a way that is contrary to your assertion. You'll also find the full staff list (or most of it) under the contact us link, which includes editors, producers, managers, etc all the hallmarks of a reliable source--Crossmr (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is while the association of "Asian fetish" with guys obsessed with asian girls is covered by many reliable sources and should get "most" of the article, the lead and a sub-section should talk about the casual usage of the term and separate Asian Fetish which seems to be used mostly perjoratively with Asiaphile which gets a non-perjorative usage in the media. You simply can't talk about the term at all without drawing this distinction and showing the usage. I've got no issue with linking to some of the college newspapers and other sources which talk about how asian women are worried about white guys with fetishes, etc. So long as there is a clear indication that the terms have differences (while often describing a similar thing)--Crossmr (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's true, we don't need a dissertation on the word, however there has to be some kind of substantive thing to write about it; we do need a topic or concept beyond a mere word. I don't accept richmond.com as a reliable or even relevant source. I accept that there are some reliable sources using the word in a sense meaning something like "liking Asians or Asian things." That's great; they can be used as attestation for the Wiktionary entry, and they can be mentioned here as another meaning of the word, as I already said. I don't care how people use the word; it is not assuming good faith to accuse me of objecting to the "liking Asians or Asian things" definition by writing that people are using "a broader definition to the term than what you'd like" particularly when I have given no sign that I don't accept that there is that more benign use, and indeed have repeatedly said I recognize it. You're ignoring what I've written in order to falsely accuse me of things. I have no problem with that usage, and I do not endorse the sexist one. As I said above, I'm not sure this article should continue to exist at all; the only thing that seems substantive enough to write about is the sexist usage. I am unable to conceive how an article can be written around the dictionary definition "Asian fetish or asiaphilia is liking Asian people or things" followed by various citations. If that is the case, it should be deleted as a dicdef. If instead you are able to conceive of a way to write an encyclopedia article, that's great, but you have yet to state why or how you think it can be expanded beyond that. Please, stop making changes to the article, stop making changes to the talk page, let some new people get in here and supply some new comments and replies. Шизомби (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can't accept that a site owned by a news organization which has a full staff of editors and managers isn't a reliable source, then you should take it to RSN, because that more than meets our definition of a reliable source. The intro of an article generally defines it, and if you acccept those usages then it needs to be included in that definition. As for reading your posts, I've read them all plenty, more than once. Asiaphiles can be covered in a small section showing that various reliable sources use it non-perjoratively (there are book sources too). As for making changes to the article and talk page, go give WP:OWN a read. I don't need your permission to archive talk which hasn't been added to in months or over a year. If you feel there are any individual items that have been sitting there for months that you suddenly want to add to, feel free to bring them back and do so. But with the upcoming RFC I'm expecting this page to grow in size being a controversial topic and having stale talk here doesn't seem condusive to that situation. its all freely available in the archives for anyone who wants to read it. This has of course already been explained on your talk page, so I'll point you again to WP:AGF for the third time, as I can't really see your point in complaining about it yet again.--Crossmr (talk) 07:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If I really have to, I'll take it to RSN, sure. The contact page you linked to showed "content editors" which makes me continue to believe it is an internet content provider and not a newspaper, and thus not such a reliable source. There is also the question as to whether any inarguably reliable sources ever cite richmond.com, which might speak to their notability and reliability if there were. There are enough other good references to use for that sense, ones we can all be happy with, so I don't understand the insistence on continuing to argue about this in order to establish consensus for using it. I've read OWN, otherwise I wouldn't cite it, but OK, I'll read it again. I think time spent reading the Misplaced Pages: space pages is time spent fairly well. OWN has repeatedly been a problem with this article with a number of different editors over the years, unfortunately. Anyway, as I said on my talk page, I'm going to sleep! Tomorrow is a new day &c., good night all! Шизомби (talk) 08:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Internet content providers are more then capable of being reliable sources. There is no stipulation that a reliable source being a print source. Only that it has editorial oversight, which having editors would indicate it does. There are many reliable sources used all over wikipedia that don't come from newspapers or other print sources. I recommend you read up on WP:RS. notability is immaterial to whether or not they're a reliable source. We're not writing an article an richmond.com. The sites usage is in line with other sources like Time, or the New York Times. The insistance is that you questioned it and I defended it, and you continue to question it, so I'm continuing to defend it as a reliable source.--Crossmr (talk) 09:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

AfDs seemingly related to this article

Some of the AfDs that appear to be regarding articles created in response to this article and/or deleted with regard to this article. Probably not a comprehensive list:

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Asiaphile

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Asiaphile/2004-12-14

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rice queen

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Japanophile

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael Lohman

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Michael Lohman (2nd nomination)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sex crimes against Asian women

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sex crimes against Asian women in the United States (2nd nomination)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ethnic pornography

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/German fetish

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Curry fetish

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kyoko Ayana

Not sure what all that means exactly, except further indicators of problems. Шизомби (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• As I recall, there was a very obsessed (puppetmaster?), seemingly an asian male who hated the idea of white guys having "his" women, who made a nuisance of himself some time ago. Abductive (reasoning) 02:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Going through "What links here," past Misplaced Pages: namespace pages discussing problems:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive11#User:Wzhao553
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive15#User:Wzhao553
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive15#User:Gnetwerker
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive61#User:Tkguy_reported_by_User:Christopher_Mann_McKay_.28Result:_24_hour_block_.29
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive63#User:Tkguy_reported_by_User:Crotalus_horridus_.28Result:_page_fully_protected.29
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive347#User:Tkguy_at_Asian_fetish
• Misplaced Pages:Article_Creation_and_Improvement_Drive/Removed/Archive1#Asian_fetish_.2813_votes.2C_stays_until_November_15.2C_2005.29
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Asian_fetish
• Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts/archive2#December_7
• User:Infinity0/Vandal_report
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Infinity0

Also a subpage that was probably forgotten:

• Talk:Asian fetishism/rewrite Шизомби (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This article could use some new eyes with expert knowledge/mediation/constructive input; I've posted to WP:Cleanup, several WikiProjects that seem relevant, Misplaced Pages:No original research/Noticeboard and doing so now to RfC. (Other ideas just about where to seek help are also welcome). Article was created 06:51, 20 April 2004 by an IP. There's thirteen talk page archives and five Articles for Deletion discussions; there are 122 watchers and about 400 daily page views on average. Has never reached much of a consensus regarding the subject, content or sources AFAIK. Concerns touch on many points, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:Synthesis, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#ESSAY, WP:NOTDICTIONARY and probably some others. That it has touched on gender, race, sex, and pornography has perhaps made it that much more controversial and difficult. Thank you! Шизомби (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

For me, this is essentially a dictionary article, so should not be here. The article currently lists some examples of the term in use in different contexts, but no sources which specifically examine either the slang term, its meanings or the underlying concepts. It is not a subject which attracts significant discussion in reliable sources. --hippo43 (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it has been AfD'd so many times that I think trying that again won't work. Abductive (reasoning) 08:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• I am concerned that this article seems more to be about interracial dating than a fetish. A fetish is a sexual fixation of such power that the person afflicted can't function sexually without it, right? Abductive (reasoning) 08:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I heard, someone with an Asian fetish is someone who has a strong obsession with Asian people or their culture. In storybooks and movies, the mother is always Asian and how the white man is deeply in love with her. It's a love story between them. I don't think this is about interracial dating. It's more of a fetish. A fetish is anything to which excessive devotion, concern, or reverence is given. Many people who date Asian people simply do it because they have a concern for their culture. I don't think this is just interracial dating, just random people dating each other. Asian fetish is more than that. It's romantic. I would hate if the term were used only for interracial dating. Pradakillz60 (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What I've heard is this is called "yellow fever", and is similar to "jungle love". Nobody I know considers it a fetish, no more than a friend who like blondes has a fetish. But what we've heard doesn't matter; we have to construct the article from secondary sources. Even the scientific article people have been edit-warring onto and off of the page is just a primary source. Abductive (reasoning) 08:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If we can't find any secondary sources, should the entire article be deleted? For all we know this term could all be a hoax that the media perpetuated. The term could be degrading among other races too. If people heard about how sweet and romantic their stories are, Caucasian men will just steal the hearts of Asian women. Then Caucasian women have no choice but to date other people. If we deleted this article, we would be telling the media no. They can't say whatever they want to say and everyone will believe their BS. This is just wrong morally to corrupt people's mind implying that "Asian woman belong with the Caucasian man." We need to stand up to the media and tell them no that they are out of their minds to make us believe that. Pradakillz60 (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What? Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to make people feel better by brushing stuff under the rug. And as I say above, an AfD will almost certainly be a waste of time. Although I disagree with your motivations, I think you are right about the lack of good secondary sourcing. My solution would be a merger with the unfortunately titled Miscegenation. Abductive (reasoning) 09:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that Misplaced Pages is not censored. However, I disagree that another AfD has to be ruled out as a possible option. AfD closing administrators are supposed to be "looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. Misplaced Pages policy requires that articles and information be verifiable, avoid original research and synthesis, respect copyright, and be written from a neutral point of view. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus" Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough_consensus. Arguably all these problems except copyright apply to the article, and if it seems that there is no way to create an article that meets with policy (as has seemed to be the case for years), then an AfD might be appropriate, and if the consensus there is not to delete, it could still be overriden by the admin's judgment. One would have supposed with all the "keep" arguments and "keep" closings that this were merely an editorial dispute problem as some of them claimed, but the fact that the article still is unsatisfactory and there has not been much input from the people who argued for keeping it AFAIK might indicate the problem is really that there are substantive problems with meeting policy that simply can not be overcome. However, I certainly don't think doing an AfD at this moment would be appropriate and under this RfC perhaps some new editors may see a way to create an article that works.

Incidentally, the newly created User talk:Pradakillz60 above was blocked for odd talk page comments regarding Asian women and children on User talk:Jimbo Wales; not the kind of "new eyes with expert knowledge/mediation/constructive input" I was hoping would comment here. Шизомби (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I think our best option is a merge somewhere, or perhaps a rename. Abductive (reasoning) 17:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree all options under WP:BEFORE need to be considered. There have been some past discussions here regarding the name; it's possible to open all the archive pages at the top right of this page separately (paging through them doesn't seem to be) or alternatively I had added an archive search window at the top of this page. I'm not sure miscegenation would be the right target for a merge, since that seems to be more about racist concerns regarding children resulting from interracial relationships and I haven't seen that topic raised regarding Asian fetish/Asiaphile/Asiaphilia (maybe it has). However, I may be mistaken regarding the meaning of miscegenation. If you think it would be appropriate, you could add merge proposal tags right now (I would not recommend actually merging without first proposing it); alternatively we can wait for more comments on this and other issues before taking that step. My own preference would be to wait for more comments, but that's your decision. Шизомби (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Pradakilla (commenter above) is an absolutely perfect example of the reason I am extremely vigilant with this article: however silly it may be, he is obviously an Asian male motivated by insecurity about Caucasian men having relationships with Asian women. It makes perfect sense that he would try to use a venue like Misplaced Pages to spout articles that would demonize this particular cross-cultural paring. This notwithstanding the fact that it is scary, creepy and gross how easy it is for people like pradakilla to instantly dehumanize and slander a whole swath of humanity in horrible ways just because of his own personal insecurities.

Here is a good example of what motivates me toward this article: "This is just wrong morally to corrupt people's mind implying that "Asian woman belong with the Caucasian man." ..... Wow! Where in the world does this guy get the idea that somehow someone out there is trying to "corrupt people's minds" that everyone will be duped into thinking "Asian women belong with the Caucasian man?" First of all, I am Caucasian and male. I have absolutely not ever thought that "all Asian women belong with white men." But people like Pradakilla think that I do; NO: they INSIST that I do, and they are determined to promote this myth in all its unlettered glory, eventhough it is completely unfounded. Further, the idea that somehow Asian women are not intelligent enough to decide for themselves who they will be in relationship with seems to be a common theme among some Asian men. AGain: this is why I keep a close eye on this article, because these are the kinds of creepy racist myths that some (not all, of course) Asian men bring to this article.

Concerning solutions, I have always said it should be deleted. However, if it is not deleted, the main problem remains to be the definition of what is essentially a slang term. There must be a few different definitions based on the context and the group using the term. As Crossmr has correctly pointed out, there are many different ways that the term is used, and therefore the different ways must be represented. That is the only way to handle this article if not deleted. But again, it is sad that it has remained in Misplaced Pages this long. Again: I move to delete.Computer1200 (talk)05:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Now now, try to keep the discussion on the content here, not the other editors. Whatever motivations people may have are largely irrelevant as whatever we end up with needs to be in line with existing policies and guidelines.--Crossmr (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"whatever we end up with needs to be in line with existing policies and guidelines": absolutely, if it is possible. If not: AfD. As for Pradakilla, all that is apparent is that the user was a vandal or troll of some kind. Whether what ze wrote was their personal belief or not is unverifiable and not obvious at all. Шизомби (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Fraid not. Afd isn't for article improvement. If a content dispute can't be resolved it doesn't go to AfD. There are several most steps in the process and in the final end it might end up at arbcom.--Crossmr (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

}No, I'm not talking about using AfD for article improvement or to settle a dispute about content, as my comments above you'd read "plenty, more than once" I had thought indicated clearly. Content disputes are an inappropriate use of the AfD process and WP:Deletion policy; WP:BEFORE states literally quite boldly "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." I'm only talking about using AfD if there is a consensus that nothing but a dictionary definition can be written, or that an encyclopedia article about it cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, that it is an article for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify it have failed, that it is a subject that fails to meet the notability guideline, or that it is otherwise not suitable for an encyclopedia. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case here, but it is looking that way to me. Шизомби (talk) 12:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd almost certainly support deletion. There seems to be no serious coverage of the concept of an "Asian fetish" in reliable sources, therefore no notability, and all we have here is a bunch of examples of usage of a term with numerous apparent different meanings. Aside from a couple of editors using it a as a battleground for their agendas on the subject of inter-racial dating, I can't see what purpose it serves. --hippo43 (talk) 00:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That an article might be a battleground is a problem but not in itself a reason for or support for deletion. The apparent lack of reliable sources and significant coverage is the sort of problem that is, if it is inescapably an actual lack. Still, I really hope to see some new contributors' thoughts. Maybe the end of the year holiday season is too busy a time for an RfC, I don't know. The whole cycle of reversions of you (Hippo43), Tkguy, Crossmr, and anyone I may be overlooking doesn't seem to be constructive as far as I can see, since it's hard to say any if any of those versions have consensus (would any of you say there is?), and it seems like it will continue without end. Possibly paring the content down to just the dicdefs with RS that satisfy dicdef attestation for the moment and then ceasing to edit the article, leaving it in a stable state while the issue of whether requirements for the expansion of a dicdef into an article is at all possible is an option we could agree on? What other possible options can anyone think of to stop the back and forth in the article, or to elevate the discussion here? Шизомби (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, these reversions are not ideal. I suggest we wait for interested editors to produce examples of reliable sources which actually address the subject specifically, rather than passing mentions of the term in works on other topics. If none are forthcoming (and I haven't found any) then it would seem there is a good case for deletion.

For me, the biggest problem seems to be that various editors assume that the article is about various different subjects, inlcuding at least these 4 -

The slang term 'Asian fetish' and its various meanings

The particular use of the term to mean "white guys being attracted to Asian women"

The idea that "white guys being attracted to Asian women" is an endemic phenomenon, particularly in the USA

The idea that 'Asian fetish' is an actual fetish, or a psychiatric condition

Without good quality sources to support any of these, the article seems largely useless to readers. --hippo43 (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a feeling that the reason the article never gets deleted is people feel that the White male/Asian female mutual preference is common. There is no clinical fetish, so what about a name change for starters? Abductive (reasoning) 02:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The first two are kind of the same, the third one was put forth by some sources, I think maybe they've been removed now, and the fourth I don't think has any sources claiming that. So we could probably eliminate that right off the bat, which means the sexual fetish category could probably be removed as well. The third one is what the columbia study refutes. So I've no problem with including the sources that claim that as a problem so long as the columbia study bit is present balance that view. Unless anyone can give evidence that it is a clinical fetish, the article should focus on the slang usage of the term. Perhaps drawing from articles like Nigger which is in itself a controversial slang word to illustrate how such an article should take shape.--Crossmr (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Abductive, that could be one reason why, I really don't know. A name change has been discussed before and I believe the article has gone through some name changes as well as the AfD on and redirect from Asiaphile, and a redirect from Asiaphilia. I am not sure if a name change really addresses the problems, such as the questions regarding V, RS, OR, etc. If the underlying topic is undefined, naming it won't be terribly easy, and the name usually has to conform to V, RS, etc. also anyway. While I know of no sources for it being a clinical diagnosis, and I'm forgetting at the moment whether we saw any sources alleging that it is, I'll have to try searching university library databases to see. It doesn't seem impossible that someone could be diagnosed with sexual fetishism and that it's not necessary to specify the form, again I don't know. However, the psych- professions are not the only ones that use the term "fetish," which is also anthropological, sociological, political and so on like commodity fetishism. I am not sure if other Misplaced Pages articles should be used as models for this, unless perhaps there are RS indicating the topics are analogous or categorically the same. Otherwise we're in danger of OR and SYNTH. Шизомби (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

not even a little bit. When I said use it as a guide, I meant to give us an idea of what aspects of the term are covered, what kind of sections are included, etc that take it beyond being a dictdef. All the info to go into the article would still have to come from reliable sources. There isn't even the remotest chance that would take us to trouble with OR or SYNTH.--Crossmr (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion would be a little easier if you stopped drawing from articles like Hyperbole. Шизомби (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And it would be easier if you kept the discussion on the content and not other editors. If you can't do that, then as I said before you might want to consider your participation in this discussion. Using another article as a guide when it comes from a similar topic is very common on wikipedia, especially if that article has had significant contributors and is of significant size and quality. In this case both articles are about controversial slang terms, it is by no means the only controversial slang term out there, and if other reasonable articles were to be found in that category they could also be used to help us decide how to form this article or what direction we should take. There is nothing hyperbolic about that and nothing about that that runs us afoul of any policies or guidelines.--Crossmr (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Unless anyone can provide sources which indicate an Asian fetish is a recognized clinical diagnosis like other sexual fetishes, its inclusion in the sexual fetish template and the sexual fetish category should be removed.--Crossmr (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This may be a good idea, though it would leave many issues that would still need to be addressed. I will try checking databases as to whether it might be addressed in them (I suspect not, but IANAD). I just posted notices to the talk pages of the article, template and category to direct interested and informed people to this proposal, as well as WikiProject Psychology and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force. If you can think of other relevant places, please do so as well. Шизомби (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the proposal. --hippo43 (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Strong Agree Computer1200 (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

strong disagree. Why do you insist that a fetish be a recognized clinical diagnosis when clinical diagnoses are made only for those fetishes where there is suffering involved? An asian fetish may be something worth celebration, instead of stigmatization. A sexual fetish is not an illness. Keep the article in the sexual fetish category. -- BukakiKid (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Because sexual fetishism is just that., in fact sexual fetishism doesn't come into play here and the term "Asian Fetish" is used as a common name, and not one that is technically correct. As it is not in fact technically correct lumping it in with other things which may be correct misrepresents the term.--Crossmr (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Related to this, it should be known that the Sexual Fetishism box, when not embedded on the asian fetish page, links back to this article, even as this article disputes a lot of what that definition of the term implies. That would seem to me to be an indication that whoever wants to push the "asian fetish" as a serious demented condition is reaching at some serious dead-end straws by linking back here. Computer1200 (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, never attribute to malice that which can, etc. I think the user who added it diff added it just because it was a fetish article related to sexual interests and thus thought it belonged in the template (edit summary: "addition of links to other fetish articles"). Clarity is also not helped by the iffy quality of Sexual fetishism article, which has confusing aspects. I'm curious as to what might come under the diagnoses "Other disorders of sexual preference" and "Disorder of sexual preference, unspecified," but whether this could I still haven't had time to try investigating further. Шизомби (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

enough nonsense

It's time to cease with the nonsense surrounding this article. the terms asiaphile or asian fetish seem natural and a part of common knowledge; and numbers of google hits for each of these are in the 150,000s and more.

But if you believe the comments here on the talk page, then the terms seem not to be discussed well in published literature. this is rediculous.

Is it a problem with the term? (5 failed nominations for deletion would suggest that there is an ontological battle taking place, here.)

Or is it that, where slang terms are concerned, that means we'll find different words and usage in polite discourse? in which case, failure to find many uses of the term in referenced literature does not preclude the term from existing, it just means we'll have to expand our scope to common knowledge when we source slang material. urbandictionary may well be a valid source where slang is concerned.

Let's do a detailed search for the concepts underlying the asian fetish, regardless of usage.

It is probably safe to say that i have an asian fetish:

• i have dated both vietnamese and korean women and find them to be fantastic;
• i regularly eat raw fish with rice, ginger and sea weed;
• i know how to use chop sticks;
• i shop at asian markets in chinatown;
• i wear and decorate with asian symbols;
• i have studied feng shui and tai chi and shiatsu;
• i go to karaoke parlors;
• i match the prototypical character described at (white male, 45yrs old, divorced)
• i find engrish to be seriously cute

Therefore, apparently i can say with authority that the fetish is not restricted to sex; but it is obsessive, and sex appeal is a part of it; that appeal includes each of appearance, accent, personality, and work ethic.

Intuitively, a person with an asian fetish will likely overlap with my experience:

• be interested in foreign culture;
• be curious about the languages, linguistics, and character sets;
• be curious about politics of the region;
• be a fan of asian film and tv including anime.

Surely you can find supporting material for these claims? -- BukakiKid (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. If there aren't reliable sources covering the subject... --hippo43 (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• at fetish boutiques in Toronto, you will find that the asian fetish makes its way into fashion with dragons, bonzai, silk, animism, geisha, samurai, and ninja themes all being available.
• Japanese rope bondage has massive appeal. Fetish Diva Midori will be happy to inform you of the art of restraint. Midori, Craig Morey, The Seductive Art of Japanese Bondage, Greenery Press, 2001. ISBN 1-890159-38-7.
• Asian themes appear in fetish performance art.
• Stunning asian beauty and fetishistic style make their way into films like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Battle Royale.
• how could the notion of a battle haiku death match exist without massive audience appeal? -- BukakiKid (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because you haven't provided reliable sources that either make those claims or use the term in those ways. We are not reliable sources and all info has to be attributed to those.--Crossmr (talk) 00:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"Nonsense surrounding this article?" Hardly. In fact, the unstudied arguments of "BukakiKid" demonizing non-Asians for being interested in Asian things as having some clinical, demented "fetish" betrays a continued, intense need on the part of Asian men to demonize, isolate and punish non-Asians who have any interest in Asia. It's disturbing and creepy. And racist. Further, all of these arguments might be used conversely against all Asians themselves who persist in living in the United States, exhibiting all of the characteristics in the lists of what "BukakiKid" uses to isolate those with his said "Asian fetish." By his definitions, we have a seriously gigantic number of Asians with "American-Fetish." Asians have moved here and stayed. Though some came generations ago for work, any proceeding generations could have easily returned; they have not. Could not the same unfair accusations about a "American-Fetish" be made of Asians living in America? If you are intellectually honest, yes, it could. If that is offensive to you as an Asian American because it is ridiculous for me to accuse you of a clinical obsession about America just because you live here and have interest in America, you are right — and justified in your offense. Welcome to how it feels to be accused of having an obsessive, unhealty "fetish" toward Asia just because you date an Asian woman, eat sushi, learn an Asian language, or, as BukakiKid claims, amazingly, even if you shop at an Asian market. Computer1200 (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If this topic is even necessary at all, could it be a sub-category of something broader, like Sexual preference, Racial sex preferences, or something along those lines? I realize that it is being described here as an "obsession", but that information could still be mentioned. An article like this seems to assume that there is something odd about liking Asian women as opposed to liking: Asian men or black/Hispanic/etc. people of either gender. The above comments about knowing how to use chopsticks as an indicator of Asian fetish are just ridiculous.

This article leaves nothing to compare it to. It also doesn't address the thought that perhaps "Yellow fever" is not actually any more significant than any other racial preference/obsession. I've also seen studies that claim to link "Asian fetish" to pedophilia. I guess that would belong here, if I could find it. Puchiwonga (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect, Computer1200's comment above is full of the "unstudied arguments" he finds in BukakiKid's comment. It is full of the kind of OR that has made this article such a problem, and in attacking a straw man, makes it clear that Computer1200 has a particular POV to push here. Again, are there sources available which support any of that? --hippo43 (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Again: the burden of proof is on hippo43, and her friend "BukakiKid," to prove that some sort of demented "fetish" really exists. This is how it works: you make dubious claims about an "asian fetish" that are inflammatory, sensationalistic, racist, utterly dehumanizing, creepy and gross, then the burden of proof is on the claimant to show with very credible sources that said "fetish" exists in the way that you claim it exists. And please note: this is decidedly not the same thing as listing off ways that I talk about "asian fetish" with my friends. However, hippo43 should free to list off all the "unstudied arguments" in my comment. I would be glad to respond. Computer1200 (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Computer, did you actually read the comments here before replying? --hippo43 (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I do recommend that Hippo43 stay focused on laying down logical arguments for the dubious claims she continually tries to enforce, rather than question my ability to read comments, which is ad hominem attack and dangerously close to personal attack that does not directly address the criticisms she is making. My comments have continually been germane. Thank you. Computer1200 (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect, Hippo43 is a he, not a she. I have not tried to enforce anything, or made any dubious claims. I made no personal attack - my point is just that you have constructed an elaborate straw man, and seem to have read an awful lot into BukakiKid's (admittedly bizarre) comments. There was no claim in this discussion that anyone, least of all you, has 'some sort of demented "fetish"' and no one demonized 'non-Asians for being interested in Asian things as having some clinical, demented "fetish"'. You seem to be aggressively defending yourself against a non-existent attack. Do you have any constructive suggestions for how to fix the article? --hippo43 (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your position on the study is already disputed. reverting and insisting on discussion amounts to ownership and frankly looks combative given that there is an open RFC, you already reverted it 3 times a few days ago, and you know it's disputed. If you want to look for constructive suggestions, doing that isn't one of them. If you want to make non-trivial changes to the article, I'd suggest creating a proposal like I did above and am going to do below.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Columbia study

I've pared this down again. I realise that it is disputed by a couple of editors, but there has never been a genuinely stable version as far as I can tell, so there has been no consensus established for how much of it should be included. Recent changes in content and article size affect how much weight this should be given. I have never suggested that I own this article, or any part of it, but Computer1200 and Crossmr's tenacity in resisting changes suggests that they might think they do.

There was far too much weight given to this study - nearly half the word count of the article at one point! The study is not directly related to the subject of the article - after recent changes, dating preferences are only one aspect of the article's content, and this study is not even specifically about Asian people.

It was being used to refute a straw man, a position which may have been relevant in past arguments here, but is not currently. There is no suggestion in the current text that among white Western men in general there is a widespread obsession with Asian women, so a weighty section based on a barely-related study being used to rebut that view is ridiculous. It would be good to get views from a number of editors on this. --hippo43 (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

using the term "yellow fever," a pun on the disease of the same name, discusses white men with a "fetish" for Asian women. seems like this is still in the article. Once we can get a consensus on where we are going with this article that idea is put forth in many reliable sources, and it will probably just have to be restored to full again.--Crossmr (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hippo43, you have an interesting concept about how to form consensus. You do what you want to the article, then tell us what you did. That is not getting consensus. Indeed, you've pared it down without consensus — again. In anycase, there is no "straw man." To define frequency of said "fetish" that the slang form implies is absolutely critical and central. This in relation to the slang term's implication of a kind of bizarre dementia that is characteristic of any relationship between a non-Asian man and an Asian female. If you have any doubt that some believe that this "fetish" is very, very widespread, just look at the creepy things that BukakiKid is insisting: we all have a bizarre asian fetish (and his characterization of people with said fetish is bizarre as you have already admitted), he is sure of it, if we go shop at an asian market, wear asian symbols, or even use chopsticks. YOU CANNOT GET ANY MORE WIDESPREAD THAN THAT. However: the Columbia study shows empirical proof that white men do not have any special, widespread attraction to asian women, therefore completely disproving the contention that any relationship between a white man and an asian women is somehow unhealthy in any way. Please, if you revert again, I am recommending that you be blocked. It also seems that you have a history of being blocked for reckless reverts and edits on other articles (cf: Drew Barrymore). Please don't make this the next one. Having said that, I am not trying to fight here. I think some of your work on this article has been good. But I do think we will have to respectfully agree to disagree on the Columbia Study.Computer1200 (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the name of the professor and the business of "as quoted by" as inappropriate. Abductive (reasoning) 07:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing inappropriate about it. Feel free to cite a policy that says otherwise though.--Crossmr (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Rather than cite it here for discussion I noticed you instead chose to revert the article. Undue has absolutely nothing to do with naming the author of a study in an article. Notability has nothing to do with it either. Notability has a bearing on the creation of a new article on fishman, but that isn't what is going on here.--Crossmr (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

With Abductive refusing to discuss his aggressive editing without discussion, my vote on the Columbia study is that the original content be preserved. To many the Columbia study is controversial, and therefore it requires thorough and credible citations, including authorship and uni's involved. Positing the idea that including thorough documentation of a source is somehow against Misplaced Pages rules, or a "general consensus" implies a completely different agenda, and one that goes against the spirit of Misplaced Pages that very heavily emphasizes clean, strong links between ideas in the content and the sources that back up that content. One must ask the question: when is it in anyone's best interest to hide and conceal sources? Answer: when the sources guard the credibility of an argument that someone does not like.

I also would point out that Abductive's arguments (sudden, aggressive, and contentious) about citations not only do not make sense, but also they do not follow Misplaced Pages regs. Misplaced Pages has very clear guidelines about citations likely to be challenged here: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. With reference to what one should include in a citation for something controversial, it states the following: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." And also: "Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work should be cited and attributed to their authors in the text." Please note clearly: these guidelines go much further than simply allowing the kind of inline citations that are in the section, they require those kinds of inline citations. I am re-inserting the original content. Please do not change without discussion here. Computer1200 (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal 2

I think we need to come to a consensus on the definition. To that end I'm going to list a couple of things and people can weigh in on whether or not they agree or disagree with the assessments, and it would help if people would provide sources that may already be in the article or not in the article for each position. I don't think there are sources for all of these, I'm just putting in various combinations so people can either support or disagree with any of the various definitions. If you feel I've left out a definition feel free to append it to either list.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is well-intentioned, and might prove useful, but without specifically referring to the relevant sources, it is utterly meaningless. Which sources are you talking about in your comments below? --hippo43 (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources that exist in the article or that have been discussed here or any that people want to bring to the discussion. I wrote this quickly before I had to go out, so I didn't have time to pull them from the article. But in terms of the asian fetish one, being used non-pejoratively, I've brought those up a couple times. Specifically in reference to an architect and clint eastwood making 2 films with a japanese theme.--Crossmr (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Asian Fetish

• Some reliable sources specifically define "Asian Fetish" as an obsession (used pejoratively) with all things Asian (including women)

Suppport I believe at least a couple reliable sources explicitly define this as such.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Some reliable sources specifically define "Asian Fetish" as a strong interest (used positively or neutrally) with all things Asian (possibly including women)

• Some reliable sources specifically use "Asian Fetish" in a context that means obsession (used pejoratively) with all things Asian (including or specifically women)

support I believe several reliable sources use the term as such without specifically defining it (like the college papers)--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Some reliable sources specifically use "Asian Fetish" in a context that means interest (used positively or neutrally) with all things Asian (possibly including women)

support At least a couple sources I've found use the term in a non-pejorative sense to indicate what seems to be to be an interest and not an obsession, and which doesn't include a focus on women.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Asiaphile (asiaphilia)

• Some reliable sources specifically define "Asiaphile" as an obsession (used pejoratively) with all things Asian (including women)

• Some reliable sources specifically define "Asiaphile" as a strong interest (used positively or neutrally) with all things Asian (possibly including women)

• Some reliable sources specifically use "Asiaphile" in a context that means obsession (used pejoratively) with all things Asian (including or specifically women)

oppose I haven't come across any sources that seem to use this negatively. If anyone has some, feel free to provide them--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Some reliable sources specifically use "Asiaphile" in a context that means interest (used positively or neutrally) with all things Asian (possibly including women)

support all of the reliable sources I've come across that use this term seem to use it as a neutral or positive term to indicate a general interest in all things asian.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

My comment got lost in the above discussion, so I'll paste the relevent stuff here:

If this topic is even necessary at all, could it be a sub-category of something broader, like Sexual preference (currently a redirect to a page that is not completely relevant), Racial sex preferences, or something along those lines? I realize that it is being described here as an "obsession", but that information could still be mentioned. An article like this seems to assume that there is something odd about liking Asian women as opposed to liking: Asian men or black/Hispanic/etc. If you follow the link to Jungle fever and read in the disambiguation, it links to Miscegenation (with no mention of this "phenomena" in the article that I could find).

Does Jungle Fever deserve an article? If so, wouldn't it just be better to have a broader category where these could be sub-categories?

Look at Queen (gay slang). It has all of these. A Rice Queen is a gay male with an Asian fetish. Then see Bean Queen, Potato Queen, etc. I think it makes sense for them to be together, because there isn't that much to say about any of them individually. Puchiwonga (talk) 08:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Fisman et al study

Crossmr, can you clarify what you meant in your edit summary "you're removing key findings of the study"? I don't think I removed any findings of the study - could you explain which findings specifically? You seem determined to avoid any edits to this section - the edits I made did not remove anything substantive, added accuracy and improved the writing.

Is there any good reason to refer to where the study has been discussed (" As quoted on Slate.com...") unless to add unnecessary weight to this section?

Is there a good reason to avoid using the study's title in the section heading? Using the study's actual title here is obviously preferable - using "Columbia University study" as the title is less accurate, implies that the study was on the subject of this article specifically, and serves as a peacock term. The study was carried out by four scientists, not Columbia University. In fact, only two of the four authors were from Columbia, and the study was published by the Review of Economic Studies, not a Columbia publication. The version you restored uses the word "Columbia" five times in this section - this is ridiculous. Listing all four authors is also unnecessary - the information is all there in the reference.

Is there a good reason to include the phrase "more than 400 daters", and remove the specific number of subjects, other than to serve as a peacock term? Is there a good reason to include the phrase "thousands of decisions" rather than giving a more accurate description of the study unless the intent is to mislead? In reality the study was on a speed dating experiment designed purely for the study. It was not a study of real-world dating behaviour, and it studied only around 130 white men, and around 40 asian women from a very narrow population sample. To present it here as somehow authoritative is poor scholarship, misleading and not encyclopedic. --hippo43 (talk) 16:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not have time to look at this in depth right now, but a couple things that need to be pointed out right away are: 1) the study was in fact done by three (3) Columbia University professors. That is what you do when you refer to studies that are done at prestigious universitites, you say "the Yale study" or "a study done at Princeton," or wherever. It is not only appropriate to do that, it is critical in order to guard the credibility of the findings. 2) To that end, you also include other media in which the study has appeared, which is less important, but nevertheless does indeed build further credibility. I'm reverting the title now, and we can take up the rest of it later. Computer1200 (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you take the time to get into it before high-handedly reverting without reading the source properly. 2 of the 4 authors were from Columbia, the other 2 from Chicago and Stanford. Please don't patronise me - your shoehorning the word 'Columbia' into the section as often as possible (4 times in your most recent version) is both bad writing and evidence of your desire to push your POV. Even the author, writing in the Slate article, does not refer to it as a Columbia University study, perhaps because it was not published by a publication of Columbia University. It is not for us to editorialise here about the credibility of the findings - we present the facts and let readers draw their own conclusions about the quality of sources. If there is a policy which supports your view on mentioning where the study has been discussed, could you please point it out? Reverted. --hippo43 (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm High-handed and patronizing and I'm pushing POV? Wow. If I remember correctly, just yesterday it was YOU who, all of the sudden, came in and made changes to a section that has been up for years. YOU are the one on whom the burden of proof lies. YOU are the one who must make a case to do everything that you did. It is not the responsibility of others to come in and make a case for keeping what you seem determined to change with utterly no consensus, and then get mad when it is reverted. Again, this is a pattern for which you have been busted for before.

In anycase, I don't think you make your case well. I am not in any way "editorializing findings" or "shoehorning" the Columbia name into the article. It is utterly common and accepted practice to state the name of the lead researcher's institution when referring to studies. And Fisman — a Columbia prof — was the lead (from the article: "And so for a couple of years at a local bar just off the Columbia campus, I ran a speed-dating experiment with two psychologists, Sheena Iyengar and Itamar Simonson, and fellow economist Emir Kamenica." IE: he was the lead researcher.) Further, I contend that to speak about Columbia U. three or four times in the context of that section is in no way "ridiculous." However: you are right about something. I do agree that to mention only Columbia would be remiss. I have included the other professors and the names of their institutions. Again, this is all very important to make the data credible, and to not have this data would of course immediately raise concerns about the source of this data. And the number 400? That is important in terms of the sample, and the integrity of the research methods. Finally, it is only your opinion that the writing is "bad."

If you consider this patronizing, then I'm not sure what to tell you. That is the nature of a rebuttal. The person dragging red-herrings around is you. If you revert again, without getting consensus, I will take the necessary steps to have you blocked. It is not OK to sweep into a section after it being up for so long, snipe the contents without getting any consensus or initiating any discussion, and then get upset when it is reverted. If you feel the need to change the content, then you must start a discussion strand FIRST, not after you have made a whole host of changes. Haven't we been through this before? Actually, I am just amazed at how you keep doing this and then attack people (cf. I'm heavy-handed, POV, and patronizing) who try to hold you to Misplaced Pages protocol.Computer1200 (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I added this above, and I will add it here also as it is relevant:

With Abductive refusing to discuss his aggressive editing without discussion, my vote on the Columbia study is that the original content be preserved. To many the Columbia study is controversial, and therefore it requires thorough and credible citations, including authorship and uni's involved. Positing the idea that including thorough documentation of a source is somehow against Misplaced Pages rules, or a "general consensus" implies a completely different agenda, and one that goes against the spirit of Misplaced Pages that very heavily emphasizes clean, strong links between ideas in the content and the sources that back up that content. One must ask the question: when is it in anyone's best interest to hide and conceal sources? Answer: when the sources guard the credibility of an argument that someone does not like.

I also would point out that Abductive's arguments (sudden, aggressive, and contentious) about citations not only do not make sense, but also they do not follow Misplaced Pages regs. Misplaced Pages has very clear guidelines about citations likely to be challenged here: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. With reference to what one should include in a citation for something controversial, it states the following: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." And also: "Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work should be cited and attributed to their authors in the text." Please note clearly: these guidelines go much further than simply allowing the kind of inline citations that are in the section, they require those kinds of inline citations. I am re-inserting the original content. Please do not change without discussion here. Computer1200 (talk) 06:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a collection of straw men. Who says the Fisman study is "controversial"? (To readers, rather than editors in this dicsussion) If it is a controversial viewpoint in the real world, please reference that fact in the appropriate way. There is no need to include more info in the body of the article to talk up the credibility of the source. You are obviously able to quote from WP:V. but seem unable or unwilling to understand it. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" is straightforward - an inline citation is required, not a detailed explanation of the source, author, university, author's dog etc. "...Cited and attributed to their authors in the text" likewise does not mean we have to write treatise on the source, it means we have to cite the source (with an inline citation, as already stated) and attribute the opinion to the author - not to the study, the university or anything else. That means we have to make it clear that statement X is just the opinion of author Y, it does not mean we have to explain anything further about author Y or the work. If that author has a wikipedia article about him, we would link to it. If not, we would certainly not need to provide any detail about him here.

Moreover, nobody has suggested hiding or concealing the authors of the source - they are right there in the refs. This is not about removing information from the article, or the "credibility of an argument that someone does not like". It is about presenting the information with the appropriate weight; that is, appropriate for this article.

On the other hand, your insistence on having so much information is clearly an attempt to enhance the impact of mentioning this study. How much credence readers should give to a source is a judgment that it is not ours as editors to make; it is not our job to talk sources up, or to talk them down - let the source speak for itself. --hippo43 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. Not a collection of straw men; Nor am I misreading WP:V in any way. You are doing some serious, backbreaking semantical gymnastics here Hippo43. The very fact that you are absolutely bent to hide sources and information that backs up an important section that has been up for years, is proof that it is in fact controversial to you -- otherwise you wouldn't be so unbelievably obsessed about taking the content out.

But to say this source is not controversial is simply not true. Throughout the history of this article there have been different people who have wanted to take it down constantly, even as it speaks very directly to the frequency of the said "fetish." The main one besides you was TKguy. But it is not OK to freely remove and snipe content that has been up for years, and then make a note of it here in the discussion. Actually, that's not OK with any article, unless it is truly minor. I think the content that is up is fair. Others feel that way, also. And I see now that you have gone so far as to pare it down to a couple sentences. That does not go well to repair your reputation as an edit-warrior, I'm afraid to say. But I must say, it is so blaringly odd and telling that you are so determined to alter the very content related to the Columbia Study. Computer1200 (talk) 01:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight on Fisman study

There are several problems with the weight proposed by Crossmr and Computer1200 for this source. The policy (WP:UNDUE, part of WP:NPOV) states "How much weight is appropriate should reflect the weight that is given in current reliable sources." How much coverage has this one study been given in reliable sources? Close to nil.

More specifically it states: "Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." In this example, each of these three bold items is relevant/

Quantity of text: The most recent version by Computer1200 contains 250 words in this section. The rest of the article is only around 211 words. To devote more than half of the article to a single source which does not mention the subject, or directly address it, would be laiughable if it were not a serious breach of this policy. This clearly violates the neutrality policy and, wikipedia rules aside, is obviously dreadful scholarship. The current version, edited by me tonight, contains 125 words, or 37% of the article, which is still ludicrously high.

Depth of detail: Very little is required, as explained in the section above, in line with citation policy - there is no real-world controversy relating to this study reflected in reliable sources which might justify more detailed discussion.

Prominence of placement: Does it deserve its own section? Of course not. No other source in the article is given its own section, or as detailed coverage as this one. In particular, this source does not address directly the subject of the article, and does not even mention "Asian fetish", "Asiaphilia", "yellow fever" or any similar term. I can't find a single reliable source which mentions this study in conjunction with any of those terms. How often is a single source which does not mention the article's subject given its own section in wikipedia? Virtually never, and with good reason.

WP:UNDUE does not only refer to different points of view, but states "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject". This is simply not a crucial source to the understanding of the article's subject. Given that it does not sepcifically address the article's subject, it needs to be reduced to a level of prominence no greater than any other single source. --hippo43 (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, of course. Perhaps enough time has passed to for another careful search of the scientific literature to find new articles? Abductive (reasoning) 23:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. --hippo43 (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• Naming the author of a study and their school isn't undue weight. This was already proposed, two editors disagreed, there was no consensus for the change. Your misinterpretation of WP:V aside, the section is well written as is. It only seems prominent because the rest of the article has been paired down. Expand the rest of it and it won't seem so prominent. It is 250 words which is not an excessive amount for describing a study and its results. If you want to make it shorter, consider removing the quote. The quote shouldn't be the main focus of the section and convey all the information. That should be conveyed in our own words. You also currently have no consensus to reduce the section. You were bold, it was reverted, there is no clear consensus try discussing it instead of jamming your version in or have you learned nothing from being blocked for edit warring?--Crossmr (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes have been made to the article and explained in great detail with specific reference to policy. Simply repeating "there's no consensus for that" is not discussion. So your answer is "insert more stuff so it won't look so bad"?? The reason the rest of the article was pared down was that it was so poor - the weight that was removed was done so with good reason. WP:UNDUE explicitly addresses proportion, not absolute weight. You have offered no justification for why this source should receive such a proportion of the article's content. If the article were 2500 words, this one tenuously relevant source would still account for 10% of it! What fraction of the article would be appropriate to devote to this one source? 0.1%? AFAICT, there is no basis in policy for increasing the rest of an article to make one part seem less disproportionate.

"Naming the author of a study isn't undue weight" I agree, see my comment in the section above and in my recent edit to the section. "Naming their school"?? No basis in policy - WP:V doesn't require it, and it serves as a peacock term here. I also agree with your view of the quote.

"250 words which is not an excessive amount for describing a study and its results" says who? Which policy? --hippo43 (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I disagree with your interpretation of policy. You were bold, you were reverted, we should carry on the discussion, but you can't help but revert again can you? There is not consensus for that is try and get you to realize that edit warring over it won't get your version kept. I know you have a little trouble with that but when there is something controversial on an article simply explaining yourself isn't enough. You need to gain consensus for your changes and you don't have it. Regardless of how right you think you are. Even if we are to shorten this section, you've gone about it all the wrong way. So instead of trying to jam something in there why don't you revert yourself and demonstrate that you're actually interested in gaining consensus and improving the article? Leaving something so short with a quote is a bad section. Because you've not just removed information about their schools you've removed information on how and where the study was carried out. If you want to make the section shorter, remove the quote and instead write prose describing who, what, where, when, how. Right now all you have is who (and that isn't complete) and the result. You've taken it from a useful section to one that isn't. Undue doesn't state that you should remove so much information from a section as to make it uninformative.--Crossmr (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So your answer is to repeat yourself again, but you've added "and I disagree with your interpretation of policy"? Maybe "discussion" means something different where you are. Feel free to address the specific points of WP:UNDUE. I've paraphrased the quote, as you rightly suggested. The information on the study's how/what/where & the rest of the who is still there, but it's in the footnotes, where it belongs per WP:V. (The when is in the text) None of the other sources mentioned in the article (the ones which actually deal with the subject) are treated in as much detail. --hippo43 (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And I also completely disagree with Hipp43's interpretation of the policies. It's amazingly bent and twisted. There has been obvious and protracted controversy about this section for years (including Hippo43's vendetta right now!) and that warrants extra careful and heavy use of inline citations by WP:V. Again, the section needs to remain as it has been.Computer1200 (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree but only until a consensus is reached for its change. If hippo43 wants to propose a new section here, he can do so and we can give our opinions and apply it to the article once.--Crossmr (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that shows there is no consensus for your change which is why you shouldn't be edit warring over it. There is nothing in Undue which says a section has to be reduced beyond usefulness, or exactly what percentage of the article it can take. You've given your opinion on quantity of text. You've cited policy and tainted it with your opinion. The policy doesn't say "a section can't be more than 30% of the article". You're confusing your opinion with policy. The policy says consider these things. You want to consider them it can be done, but your need to get consensus for your interpretation if you want to apply it to the article and you don't have it. The who/what/where/when/how should be part of the description of the study. It isn't remotely undue weight and provides context for readers to understand the result and where it came from as it relates to this subject. In terms of directly addressing the subject the term "Asian fetish" is only one of many terms and ideas used to describe the same thing. A racial preference in dating is perfectly in line with that since Asian Fetish and yellow fever are often used to mean that very thing.--Crossmr (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hippo43's proposed version

A 2007 study by the economist Ray Fisman on dating preferences among a group of 412 graduate students did not find evidence of "the stereotype of a white male preference for East Asian women". The study found that there was a significantly higher pairing of white men with East Asian women simply because East Asian women discriminate racially against black and hispanic men.

1. An Economist Goes to a Bar, and Solves the Mystery of Dating Ray Fisman, Wednesday, November 7, 2007 - Slate.com
2. Fisman, R., Iyengar, S., Kamenica, E. & Simonson, I. Racial Preferences in Dating, Review of Economic Studies 2007. The study was based on speed-dating experiments devised by the authors, conducted over two years, and as a result analyzed "thousands of decisions made by more than 400 daters from Columbia University's various graduate and professional schools."

• comment personally I support removing the quote and replacing it with prose describing the situation, but I don't support moving the fact that it was 2 year study and the amount of data collected to the footnote. I think it is relevant to the reader to clearly put the study in context in the text. Fisman was a co-author as noted before and I think we need to mention the other co-authors. According to Google scholarly articles, it was cited by 64 sources.
• … in Mate Selection: Evidence from a Speed Dating … - Fisman - Cited by 64 Racial preferences in dating - Fisman - Cited by 36" In fact a hundred citations. . So there seems to be plenty of interest in this study.--Crossmr (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• comment on date You've also got a problem with the date in the version you've written. Per the actual study itself (see the second link in the google link I put above) First version received August 2004; final version accepted May 2007 (Eds.). It seems this study was probably started in 2002, not 2007. if it was a 2 year study that was first submitted in 2004.--Crossmr (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least we are finally putting up a section to discuss this properly. I have some things I see as very important in the section: 1) I think the information in the quotation is extremely important, all of it. It doesn't need to be in pull-quote form as it stands right now, however. But I think it should be represented clearly and exactly in the content of the section. 2) I think it is very important to at least make it clear that the study was conducted at Columbia by two Columbia profs and two other professors. 3) finally, IMO it is important to include the other places that it was published.

Here's is my pared-down suggestion below, 137 words::

..Columbia Study on dating preferences..

In 2007 economist Ray Fisman, in a two year study he co-authored on dating preferences among Columbia University students, did not find evidence of a general preference among white men for Asian women. Fisman published an article that appeared in The Washington Post, The Review of Economic Studies, and Slate, stating, "We found no evidence of the stereotype of a white male preference for East Asian women. However, we also found that East Asian women did not discriminate against white men (only against black and Hispanic men). As a result, the white man-Asian woman pairing was the most common form of interracial dating—but because of the women's neutrality, not the men's pronounced preference. Men don't seem to discriminate based on race when it comes to dating. A woman's race had no effect on the men's choices."

In the end, I think the quoted material is the most important.Computer1200 (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You have increased the number of times this non-notable person is mentioned in this section. And the lengthy quote is quite likely against some policy or another, I'm sure. Abductive (reasoning) 05:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics