Talk:Asian fetishism/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.
Archive
Archives

Contents

Possible references?

Maybe The Hypersexuality of Race: Performing Asian/American Women on Screen and Scene? Check out the ToC on Amazon or Google.

Thank you. миражinred 04:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately Google took out a vast chunk of the book so I could only see the first chapter and the last. =( миражinred 04:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement over definition of Asian fetish

RFCsoc | section=Disagreement over definition of Asian fetish !! reason=Edit war between User:Tkguy and User:Saranghae honey !! time=21:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


Different versions

The different versions of the definition are:

Asian fetish is when people of Asian descent, typically females, are "objectified and valued not for who they are as people, but for their race or perceptions of the culture they come from". The objectification is typically sexual in nature.[1]

—Tkguy

Asian fetish refers to objectifying 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". The objectification, typically by white men, is usually sexual in nature.[2][3]

Asian fetish, used in a more benign context, has been used to indicate "a harmless preference for specific physical characteristics, such as narrow eyes and flatter noses, as harmless as some people's preference for dating, say, fatter partners." [4] Asian fetish has also been cited as causes of sex crimes against Asian women in the United States.[5]

—Saranghae honey

Comments by involved parties

Tkguy's Background Information

Please note that this page has a history of being vandalized. User:Saranghae honey nominated this page for deletion, but that request was declined. This was the second time this page has been nominated for deletion and of course both times the request was declined. User:Saranghae honey took it upon him or herself to make massive massive amount of changes to the page which he or she claims is for improving the "integrity" of the page. Of course many of these changes involved deleting much of the content of the page. I being new to the wikipedia editing world tried to keep the content, with their reliable source, that people worked hard on from being deleted. I tried to bring back some items that have been deleted in the past for obviously bias reasons. With all these deletions going on I decided that since User:LaraLove had no problem with User:Saranghae honey deletion of half the references from the page, I believe it would be ok for me to delete any changes that User:Saranghae honey made that did not have any sources that fit under WP:V. User:Saranghae honey added a new definition to Asian fetish that used a quote from the "colorq.org" site. This site seems more like a personal site with articles that have very few articles with authors specified. It's obviously bias since it slogan is "interracial interactions between people of color". There are no indication as to who exactly owns, runs, and funds this site. I don't believe this can be used a valid source. So to have a definition that uses a quote from this site then that means that the definition can be removed. This does not mean that I will not allow such a definition to be added. It just means that I expect that such definition be added with a quote that accurately convey the notion that author is trying to present. And of course it should come from a reliable source. I am doing all this red tape because that was what User:Saranghae honey and many on this page has made me put up with while trying to defend the content of this page.

Please also note that I had to spend a lot of time rewriting much of the quotes and summarization of source because I've found them to not reflect the source data accurately. For example User:Saranghae honey wrote the following:

Asian fetish has been used in a more benign context to mean "a harmless preference for specific physical characteristics, such as narrow eyes and flatter noses, as harmless as some people's preference for dating, say, fatter partners." 19:54, 27 December 2007

The actual quote is the following:

"Some say Asian fetish' is just a harmless preference for specific physical characteristics, such as narrow eyes and flatter noses, as harmless as some people's preference for dating, say, fatter partners." colorq.com source

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

I've found this manipulation of source data all over the page.

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

Here's another example of older version of the definition that was on this page:

Asian fetish denotes a sexual attraction favoring Asian people for their race and perceptions of their culture. 02:45, 28 November 2007

The above was written with a reference to Sheridan Prasso's "The Asian Mystique" book. I found that the following was the actual quote from which the above was summarized from:

"What isn't normal, however, is when preference crosses the invisible line, when Asian and Asian-American women on the receiving end feel--as Liao and Kwon say--objectified and valued not for who they are as people, but for their race or perceptions of the culture they come from."

My version imo accurately convey the exact meaning that the author was trying to convey. The original summary was a gross manipulation of the source once again.

I wrote this to make clear to all that I am neutral. The only mistakes I've made are noobie mistakes that people starting to edit in wikipedia does. And of course to make clear to all the situation I am putting up with on this page. Tkguy (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

End Tkguy's Background Information

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

I am very confused with the comments below. In almost all the pages dealing with issues of Racism and Sexism the first entry is used to define the term that the page is about. This is obviously where Asian fetish is being defined and is not the lead block. Am I missing something here? Please look at the Racism and Sexism pages and tell me how these pages are better using the lead block standard as opposed to this page. Or should these pages be changed as well to fit into this lead block standard? Also I don't understand why colorq.org is being claimed to be a good source by Cool Hand and Lara❤Love. Please look at this site and tell me how this can be a reputable source. Half of User:Saranghae honey definition contains a quote, "a harmless preference for specific physical characteristics, such as narrow eyes and flatter noses, as harmless as some people's preference for dating, say, fatter partners", from this site. If this site is not a valid source then this quote can not be used and therefore this part of the definition can not be used. I have been asked to reference any and everything that I've added with a reputable valid source that adheres to WP:V to this page so I don't see why User:Saranghae honey shouldn't be asked to do the same. I already explain all this above. I already have support for the fact that User:Saranghae honey entry is poorly sourced by talk so please keep that it mind. Tkguy (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Saranghae honey's comments

I prefer [1] with heavy copy editing and additional sources. миражinred 01:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought the point of RfC was to have external comments not from those involved in the dispute. If the RfC bot actually works and someone gives a third comment and asks for my side of the situation, I'll be happy to explain my side. However, you may find some of my stance on the section below. As for Tracy Quan, a former prostitute and a writer, I do not believe her quotes violate WP:V as it says it is okay to use "questionable sources" as long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources." I also have problems with his conduct, another cause of the dispute. He has accused me of being a vandal and someone with an agenda to mitigate the article in question ([2][3] , his edit summaries used in the article, and the section below) against WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. миражinred 02:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I admit that some of my edits are poorly written. Asian fetish is a controversial subject, and I didn't know how to word them to sound encyclopedic and neutral. миражinred 01:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Tkguy's comment

Once again nobody is writing about colorq.org and whether or not it's a valid source. And once again nobody is considering the fact that Racism and Sexism pages start out with a definition. So name me a page that involves a social situation regarding race relations that starts out with a WP:LEAD. Obviously the way you people write about it, it's seem like it's a widely accepted practice in regards to race base social interactions. Tkguy (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So why does the Racism and Sexism don't following the WP:LEAD standard but this page has too? Please explain. Otherwise I can't see why this page should be any different. If there are no standard on other page that deals with a race base social concept then this page should not be used as an example. Tkguy (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved parties

It's not solely a definition. It's the lead of the article. Saranghae's version is more in-line with WP:LEAD and is sourced. Lara❤Love 18:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Poorly sourced. Relata refero (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the word "definition" might actually be the problem. This is a lead block, and it's supposed to summarize the article. The "definition" is just that, and completely fails to capture large blocks of article, such as sex crimes. If we really want the definition to stand, much of the article would have to be excised. I'm not sure where else we would put this material.

As an aside, the lead block doesn't even need to be cited, so long as it mirrors the article which is appropriately referenced. Cool Hand Luke 22:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming it's a good source. In fact, I agree that the sourcing of statements in this article is sloppy throughout, but the substance of the colorq sentence seems to mirror the last heading of this article, so could easily be used to summarize that section without any citation at all.
And yes, I think WP:LEAD is good style and should be used unless there's a good reason not to. Very large topics act as a gateway to many articles in summary style, so a proper lead is sometimes impossible. However, a summary style lead is feasible and desirable for this article. Cool Hand Luke 00:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the more inclusive lead block. It should include all major perspectives in the article. Phyesalis (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, I don't believe colorq is usable as a source, from their about page Statements published at www.colorq.org are solely the opinions and perspectives of individual contributors. ColorQ does not endorse or take responsibility for any views expressed. ColorQ makes no representations or claims of any kind, express or implied, as to the accuracy or factuality of materials included on this site.[4] They're not standing behind their content and we can't use it as a source.--Crossmr (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think everyone involved here needs to step back and take a deep breath. Oh, and remember that one should do onto others as they would have done onto themselves. --Sharkface217 04:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolving dispute

I would still like to reach a consensus with Tkguy while waiting for request for comment. I believe the request for comment bot has been malfunctioning for quite a while.

In short,

  • It seems like User:Tkguy thinks colorq is not a credible source. Fine.
  • I don't believe that Tracy Quan should be discredited because she is a sex columnist. She seems like a prominent Asian American figure and also an author who has written multiple books.
  • I put up Phoebe Eng's quotes, but it is important to read the article to see the proper context. If Tkguy disagrees with my interpretation, I'm open to a discussion hopefully without the accusations that I am mitigating something. миражinred 02:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Tracy Quan served as a spokeswoman for Prostitutes of New York. Are you joking me? We are dealing with the topic of the objectification of asians and here you are using a former part asian prostitute as your source? First off your source is in the context of her being paid as a sex advice columnist. and to call her a "prominent Asian American figure" is very insulting to asians. Once again you are grossly manipulating your source. Her views are extreme so therefore can not be used as a source other than for the topic of prostitution or on herself.
You write about quotes from Phoebe but there are no quotes on the page. Where are the quotes? if you must you can just revert back to the old entry and the old reference. Have you even read this source? If not, you should not be manipulating the references or the notion it's supporting in any way. Tkguy (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to place an emphasis on "former" prostitute. She's a prostitute, not a Nazi. Pol Pot was a prominent Cambodian. Is that fact a slap in the face to Cambodians? Again, you accuse me of manipulating and mitigating. We will see what will happen through the RfC. I already put up Phoebe Eng's quotes in the footnotes. Take your time to read it. Thanks.миражinred 03:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
She's a former prostitute who fights for the rights for prostitutes. Meaning she does not have a problem with the profession. She's a spokesperson for a prostitute organization in NY! that makes her an incredibly bias source for a topic that deals with the objectification of asians. You are grabbing at straws here. I suggest you find a real reputable source. Just like you made me do the same for everything I did on this page.
I read your phoebe quote how does the following
"Jackie Chan brings humanity and humor to his roles, and that's good," she says. "But he's still a karate-chop character, and they're still cartoon characters in a way." She'd like to see more guys who aren't doing roundhouse kicks, which is why she's pleased about Rick Yune. "He is just one of many Asian-American men who are really turning around that whole emasculated-Asian-man stereotype," Eng says. "He's a very good-looking guy.
"There are so many [Asian-American] people populating ads in all of these fashion magazines. Look through an issue of Vogue or GQ. Asian-American men are seen as a very vigorous buying audience," she adds.
become this?
Phoebe Eng has argued that not all Asians feel that Asian fetish is bad, since it has given new sexual visibility and liberation to an otherwise invisible and disadvantaged minority in the media.
This makes no sense. Absolutely no sense. To say that her quote supports this sentence means you have absolutely no intentions of doing good faith editing. Tkguy (talk) 03:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend reading Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Your mistakes and conduct are much more than your "noobie mistakes." If you don't agree with Phoebe Eng's quote in the Chihara's article, fine. If you don't like Tracy Quan because she is a prostitute, fine, because I just found another source. миражinred 03:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Tracy Quan is not a source, just an opinion. Just because she is a prostitute, it does not mean that her opinion should not be on an article. Asian fetish is not something scientific or medical that can be easily proven by studies. I'm just trying to provide different perspectives. I will put up another article as I have said before. миражinred 03:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
This is incredible. I have no problems with prostitutes. I have a problem with using the opinion of prostitutes when it comes to a topic regarding the objectification of asians. Prostitution is a profession where people are selling their bodies. They are being paid to be objectified sexually by others. Therefore she is extremely bias in regards to the objectification of asians. Also you stated that this is an opinion and for that reason alone this can not be used as a source according to WP:V. I suggest you find a reputable source to back up these notions. Until then they should be removed. Just like you removed all that other stuff from this page for the lack of valid sources. I had to back up everything I put on this page with a reputable source so you will have to do the same. Tkguy (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The only "sources" I have removed are blogs and excessive external links. Can you show me the sources I deleted in the form of diffs? миражinred 03:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, I believe that using Tracy Quan's quotes shouldn't be a problem since WP:V says it is okay to use questionable sources as long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources." миражinred 03:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi M. This is a controversial article. The main problem I see is not in the addition of sources, but the inappropriate way they can be presented. I know it could be a hard process, but I believe anything that is potentially inflammatory or racist, should be removed from the article and taken straight to this talkpage to be discussed, even if it is from a good source. From that point it can be either very carefully discussed with due time and effort, for either careful addition, or sensible rejection.Aberdeenharbour (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I would also be happy if you would provide some comment on the RfC above. As a Korean, I understand that Asian fetish is a controversial topic. However, I do not believe that they were presented in a racist or an inflammatory way, and I have no intention to distort them. Could you go into more details to explain this? миражinred 05:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Tracy Quan has published in multiple anthologies/reference works relating to sex work: a chapter in Prostitution & Pornography: Philosophical Debate About the Sex Industry along with feminist icons like Catharine Mackinnon, an essay in Whores and Other Feminists, and an essay in the Encyclopedia of Prostitution and Sex Work. The fact that she was a sex worker qualifies her, rather than disqualifies her from writing on the subject. She is a fine source. Phyesalis (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. this violates the WP:V of using extreme sources. Tracy Quan is far too extreme and plus this is her in the context of a sex advice columnist. Sex advice columnists are paid to give their opinion. And wikipedia WP:V once again states that opinions should not be used as a source. But if you put this in I will put in a note that Tracy is a former prostitute and a spokeperson for PONY. This should made very clear as this is a page regarding the objectification of asians and we are talking about a part asian person who is a former prostitute who obviously have no problem with people being sexually objectified. This is so very insulting for asians that the views of a former asian prostitute is being used so prominently to support the notion that Asian fetish is something benign. Tkguy (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
OK? You want to contextualize her as a former prostitute and sex worker rights advocate, go for it. The problem is, once you start talking about sex, you open up the whole can of worms: namely, that there are people who have different views on sex, sex work, fetishes, kinks, etc. I don't understand the argument for censoring Quan because she is a former sex worker. Phyesalis (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Seems like Tkguy and Saranghae honey have found a reasonable solution on the Quan issue. Nice job on working together to arrive at a compromise. Phyesalis (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Adoption, from my talk page

Where in the wikipedia policy does it say that "non-WEIGHTy non sequitur" items can be removed? There are a lot of 2 sentence sections on this page, why weren't they removed? Seeing how you haven't recently updated this page in the past, I am wondering why you didn't talk about your deletion on the talk page before hand? Did you know that more than 1 out every 10 korean in america came here by way of international adoption? Did you know that these adoptees are 5 times more likely to commit suicide then other childrens? I added this information in but somebody said that I needed a reputable source to back up the inclusion of this data on this page. Anybody can see that these adoptees are being objectified which is the basis of asian fetish. the problem with adoption is that people doing the adoption are trying to prevent any negative information from getting out regarding the process. You can see this issue in the edit warring going on the International Adoption and other related pages. Tkguy (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never edited this page before today. The answer is WP:WEIGHT. The fact that one woman believes her adoptive mother has an Asian fetish isn't terribly encyclopedic. It adds very little, and has no real context. It makes no claim for how common it is. Nothing. If others think this is a topic essential to Asian fetish, please find better sources that give some notion of WEIGHT. Cool Hand Luke 00:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I second Cool Hand Luke's comment. Also, incorporating unpublished facts in an article constitutes original research. Except for one essay no source establishes a relationship between Asian fetish and adoption of Asian babies. миражinred 00:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Added it in the controversy section. If you have a problem with that then let me know. Tkguy (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a reference that connects adoption to the phenomena? All that's mentioned in this one anecdote, and it appears to be at least original synthesis and a WP:WEIGHT problem. This would be like including in Depression a Reader's Digest account from a woman who claimed to acquire depression after visiting Poland. I will delete it unless you provide a source that shows this "controversy" is not undue weight. Cool Hand Luke 09:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
What do you want? An official study? Every contribution has to be an official scientific study? I would think the opinion of an actual Korean adoptee is very relevant. As it's clear that this person's life was greatly effected by Asian fetish. Do you know there are edit waring going on the international adoption related page similar to what is going on here?
And here's the quote from my source. She specifically points out that the person who adopted her has an asain fetish and part of the reason why she was adopted is because of this fetish. Your accusation of original synthesis has been proven false. I will put up this quote if you require and you know what? I will.
“ I occasionally wonder why my mother adopted two Korean girls to begin with. When I ask her, she will respond, "Because I love children and would've adopted dozens more if I could have." Yet I look around and see her slightly improper infatuation with all things Asian and the picture on the wall of a birth daughter that she lost at the age of 3. 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. She just knows it. By this I am to understand that she has an unspoken kinship with Asians, even though she won't eat bean curd or shrimp heads. ”
As for your WP:WEIGHT argument. I put this under the controversy section so it does not have as much weight. But putting this quote up will give it a lot more attention and possibly undue weight which is why I didn't do it. But since you are putting me in catch 22 we will say that you are the reason for putting such a large quote up on the page. Please make a note that I am a person who do not manipulate his source. I let the source speak for itself. Which is not something that many of the editors here are doing. And yet you seem to be siding against me.
I've dealt with all your concerns. If you still have issues then let me know. Tkguy (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
No you haven't. You still have a single anecdote. If you have a source that says this is at all common, we can use that, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a forum for posting one woman's family grievances. Cool Hand Luke 21:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, there is no evidence this is a notable, or even real, manifestation of an asian fetish.--Crossmr (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Phoebe Eng

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

Eventually I will remove the quote from phoebe that provides a counterpoint to her argument that asian fetish is not benign. To put this in and make it so prominent is a misrepresentation of her work. I suspect the "Yell-oh! Girl" reference is the same as Phoebe wrote a forward to this book. Tkguy (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Moe Tkacik

Saranghae honey removed the reference to the jezebel.com site written by Moe Tkacik. This is no different than the Tracy Quan's sex column source. I will add it back in. This person has worked for the Wall Street Journal and Time Asia. So she has credentials in commenting on the issue of Asian fetish. [Moe Tkacik] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkguy (talk • contribs) 17:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because it's a blog. Blogs normally aren't used as a source. миражinred 17:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional source

I found this article from Audrey. The magazine has an editorial board and has been featured in several national media outlets. Has some interesting criticisms about the selective application of the label to white men seeking Asian women. Phyesalis (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It's already included in the footnotes at the controversy section. (next to "The controversy surrounding the term has been criticized as a notion that preference for a minority and portrayal of a minority as an attractive group is abnormal.") Please feel free to expand/reword. It's been difficult to incorporate the points from the editorial and word them to be neutral. миражinred 07:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any other articles from Audrey regarding this topic? I could only find two. миражinred 07:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Tkguy

As far as I can tell, Tkguy is a disruptive, POV-pushing single-purpose account. Every single edit he has ever made is either to this topic, or to making complaints related to this topic. *** Crotalus *** 20:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep. SPA. User seems to be promoting a line of original research postulating that Asian American suicides, among other social ills, are caused by the Asian fetish. This is not a forum for original research. Moreover, user liberally accuses other editors of vandalism in support of racism. I encourage this user—and all users—to avoid personal attacks and original research. Cool Hand Luke 21:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I second your comment. миражinred 21:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
First off you come here after you never contributed and start deleting things that we all agreed upon. And you are telling me that I am disruptive? You obviously have your own opinion that is being forced through choice deletion. Why did you delete following? I've proven that Phoebe work has been grossly manipulated on this page. and I put the following in to set the quote into its proper context. By removing it you are trying to make it seems like a minor counterpoint has more weight than it is. And you like others are grossly manipulating the source and not letting it "speak for itself".
"In order to provide a counterpoint to the overwhelming negative impact that Asian fetish has on the lives of Asian American females, Phoebe Eng wrote the following," Tkguy (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
as for you cool hand luke, so who's to say that people working against me are not here to mitigate asian fetish? All the sources say that asian fetish is so pervasive that it's almost like it's not a stigma anymore. Nearly all the reputable sources make this claim. So please stop making the claim that I am bias. Tkguy (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Your "who's to say" question is an assumption of bad faith. See WP:AGF. Cool Hand Luke 21:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you serious? you are making these serious accusations about me in regards to forcing an extreme view and you are claiming that I am not assuming "good faith"? I believe this is where the expression "pot calling the kettle black" can be used. Tkguy (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Who is accusing other editors of "grossly manipulating the sources?" Wikipedia is not a soapbox. миражinred 21:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I've already provide numerous examples of people manipulating the sources. See above. Tkguy (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy section is actually trivia

There's not really any evidence from much controversy here. There's a renamed facebook group, some campus protests, and a bald assertion that and OC Weekly article caused controversy, although there is no evidence of the controversy. I think these lines should be filled out with actual details of the purported controversy, converted into sources elsewhere in the article, or simply eliminated as random trivia. See WP:TRIVIA. Cool Hand Luke 21:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of the incidents seem relevant to Asian fetish. However, I do agree that mention about the OC Weekly article should either be deleted or used as a source. миражinred 21:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
It's apparent that you do not keep up with asian american news. The OC Weekly article was one of the most talked about article of the year in the asian community. On all the forums and asian blogs this article was talked about. The author even followed up with another article because of the incredible uproar it caused. Please do not delete any more content until you can justify your changes. Tkguy (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm entitled to edit freely as long as I'm willing to work cooperatively with other editors. So the OC Weekly article led to a lot of discussion. So what? миражinred 21:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
That's what a "controversy" is. Tkguy (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Where's your source for that? The details of the controversy might be relevant here. If it's just discussion board activity, however, that is not a reliable source. Cool Hand Luke 22:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The OC Weekly article was one of the most talked about article of the year in the asian community. that is a bold assetion. Provide reliable sources which state that. If that is your reason the article should be included you need to back that up. Otherwise its simply your opinion.--Crossmr (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I found the article "Me Love You Long Time" at the Rumpus archive. Should the article be explained? миражinred 00:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

I suggest that any editors not already familiar with Wikipedia policy read WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. Except for a few narrow circumstances (like an article on the blog itself), weblogs are generally not considered reliable sources. Neither are random self-published websites. I've removed a couple of low-quality references. which constitute undue weight. Ideally, we should stick to articles published in mainstream publications, books published by mainstream presses, or, even better, academic articles or books. *** Crotalus *** 00:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should also consider whether student newspapers deserve inclusion. I lean towards "No." Their inclusion here would constitute undue weight and gives too much space to minor "controversies" that had no traction in the real world.

You have deleted much of the content of the page. Your choice deletion obviously reveals that you have a bias that is the same as the many people who have vandalized this page. If you continue your vandalism I will report you. you have been warned. Tkguy (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I have followed Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE) in removing unreliable sources and fringe material. Just a day or two ago, you were blocked for violating the three-revert rule on this article, which you defended by saying you were unaware of this. Given your unfamiliarity with basic Wikipedia policy, I strongly suggest that you read over our standards before doing any more editing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. If you want to propound your own ideas, do it somewhere else. *** Crotalus *** 00:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I think including college newspapers depends on how they are used as a source. For example, if it's being used to explain protests from an Asian American organization from Yale (Yale Daily News), I think including them would be okay as long as they are not used too frequently. миражinred 00:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Tkguy, this is not vandalism. Please read the definition of vandalism at WP:VANDALISM, and assume good faith.
That said, I'm not sure if one racist story permanently makes the paper a fringe racist source. They at least tried to ameliorate that image. See this SF Weekly story. I think AsianWeek is probably an acceptable source in this context. Cool Hand Luke 00:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
AsianWeek is on the bubble. I think if the story was important, it should be possible to find some other source for it. If it wasn't reported anywhere else, how important is it, really? *** Crotalus *** 00:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll take a look for alternatives. I completely agree with your removal of blog "sources," of course. Cool Hand Luke 00:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The AsianWeek article was apparently quoting the spokesperson for an Asian-American women's activist group. If the group is at all notable, we should be able to find some information on them and their public positions in mainstream sources. *** Crotalus *** 00:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I found 14 hits for "National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum" in Google Books, and 7 in Google Scholar. Sounds like a relatively obscure group, but not completely unknown. It's too bad I don't still have access to JSTOR like I did when I was at college. *** Crotalus *** 00:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I also have a problem with the fact that AsianWeek is cited five times. That seems a bit excessive to me. Surely we have better sources. The "Stereotyping of Asian personality traits" section is actually pretty good on reliable sourcing, focusing mostly on scholarly publications and books published by mainstream presses. *** Crotalus *** 01:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a topic dealing with an issue regarding the treatment of minorities. I think it's fine to have a publication referenced multiple times as major publications tend to ignore issues and events that are important to minorities. Tkguy (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I searched "Shannon Stockdale and Asian" in lexisnexis. There are exactly two news results—both related to her winning a high school pageant in Orlando Florida in 2001, where she is quoted about planning to attend Yale. In short, it's not a notable commentator, nor a notable organization. I'm going to remove that lengthy block quote. I would like to find another source about the Princeton event though (that's the first cite to the story). Cool Hand Luke 01:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This article uses Tracy Quan's, a former prostitute who's the spokesperson for a prostitution rights group, sex advice column in a "smart tabloid" magazine Salon, as a valid source. So I think this should be treated as a valid source and quote too. This does not warrant a deletion. Tkguy (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Anybody who's aware of the situation with asianweek knows that they fired Kenneth Eng and apologized for his racist article. And all your sources reveals this yet you don't seem to care. This is consistent with all the other interpretations of the content of this article. I suggest you ask before you start deleting or changing anything. Tkguy (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Tkguy, you do not own this article. Please read the notice at the bottom of the edit box: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." (Emphasis in original.) Material that does not meet our policy on verifiability can and will be removed on sight. *** Crotalus *** 01:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
so you mis-characterize asianweek as being racist and I point it out and you accuse me of owning the article? There is nothing logical about your accusations. Tkguy (talk) 01:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
What he is saying is that using Asian Week multiple times will give attention to Kenneth Eng's racist theory discouraged by WP:FRINGE. миражinred 01:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Once again asianweek fired kenneth eng and apologize for what he did. You can't use this a way to write off asianweek as a source. There's no policy on wikipedia that supports your notion. Tkguy (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Quan is a noted author in the field of sex work and has been published in a number of notable anthologies and encyclopedias, as well as being a spokesperson for PONY. Stop trying to diminish her weight because she used to be a sex worker. Phyesalis (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You need to stop trying to make her out to be some kind of definite authority on Asian fetish. Plus this source of her is from salon magazine which is "smart tabloid" publication. Tkguy (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Fisman Salon article

First off it has already been determined that the salon article that Fisman wrote was a bias interpretation of the study. It's not the study. A magazine is not a study. The article itself has been panned by many and the older version of this page already made a note of this. However that note naturally has been deleted by *** Crotalus ***, which reveals your obvious bias. This article does not belong on this page unless it's listed on the controversy. But if you list it under Controversy you must include the note that indicates that the article has been panned. Tkguy (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Please understand that Wikipedia is based on the principle of verifiability. What you or I think is irrelevant. All that matters is what is said in reliable sources. As a long-standing online magazine with a generally good reputation for maintaining journalistic standards, Salon usually qualifies in this category. In contrast, weblogs and self-published webpages do not. *** Crotalus *** 01:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
You do not own the article. You can't dictate what other editors can do unless they are blatant vandals. миражinred 01:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh please, you know Crotalus horridus is manipulating this article to make it look like reputable scientific study. Cool hand luke even admits that the article is not a study but yet he still wants to include it as a study. That's just ridiculous and gives the article too much weight. Tkguy (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It was published in Salon and thus deserves a mention. миражinred 01:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
So was the adoption entry. With your words I will add it back. Your words not mine. Tkguy (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between an essay and an actual article not to mention that the fetish is sexual in nature. If parents adopt Asian babies for sexual reasons, it's one hell of a sad world isn't it. миражinred 02:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It appears that would push you over the 3RR—don't re-add it. There's a difference between an economist interpreting his own study and a single woman's account of being adopted. Cool Hand Luke 03:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I will add back in the comment from the hyphen blog Neelanjana Banerjee is not only an editor but the managing editor which makes his or her blog ok since it's part of a publication as stated in WP:V Tkguy (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. It's a blog post by a not-particularly-notable individual. Blog posts cannot be used as sources except in a few strictly limited circumstances. It stays out. *** Crotalus *** 03:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
read the foot note on WP:V. it's valid.
“ "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources ”

Tkguy (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  • That's not even close to justifying its inclusion. Both "individual and group blogs" are specifically identified as unreliable sources. Most prominent bloggers draw a paycheck for their work (Kevin Drum, Ezra Klein, and Matthew Yglesias all do so) but their blogs are still blogs and still not reliable sources. You are editing disruptively. *** Crotalus *** 04:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hyphen is a magazine. Do you understand that? the blog is part of the magazine's website. The contributions made to the blog are by professional and since the comment is coming from an actual editor it actually fulfill all the requirements. I give you the proof and you ignore it. It's amazing how bias you are. Tkguy (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The American Prospect is a magazine. It has several bloggers, including Ezra Klein, on staff. I read them regularly. Many of these bloggers also occasionally write articles that are published in the print version of the magazine. That doesn't change the fact that these blogs are still blogs, even if they are run by an employee of the magazine, and they cannot be cited as reliable sources for anything except a handful of narrow purposes. Your own interpretation of this policy is highly novel, and, as far as I can tell, no one else agrees with you on this. *** Crotalus *** 04:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
There are two keys to determining whether a blog is acceptable as a reliable source: 1) who the Author is and whether they are acknowledged as being an expert in the subject, and 2) Who is hosting the blog.
The first key goes to notability... The views of a recognized expert in any given field of study are notable and, thus, can be included in a Wikipedia article on that topic. A blog written by a prominent and well reguarded scientist, discussing a topic within his field of study can be considered a reliable source for that scientist's views (ie it can be used, but should be attributed). Likewise, A blog written by a prominent and well known political analyst, writing on politics, can be considered a reliable source for that analyst's views on the political situation (again, expressed as the author's view). However, a blog written by a political analyst writing about science is probably not acceptable, as the author is not a recognized expert in the field. His views on science are probably not notable.
The second key goes to accountability and editorial oversight. The blog pages hosted on major newspaper websites are essentially online Op-ed pieces, no different than those published in the print version of the paper... The newspaper does maintain some degree of editorial oversight and liability for what is published in the blog. The same can be said of a blog "officially" hosted on a university website or departmental website. By hosting the blog, The University or department is implicitly standing behind the author. Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
You're making assumptions about the conduct of the university and news papers in this case, which aren't backed up. Just because company x hosts a blog doesn't mean they oversight all content or will necessarily stand up behind it if its challenged. Unless they have a statement to that effect we can't make that assumption for them.--Crossmr (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sex crimes

After taking out weasel words (some say...) and removing obscure and fringe sources (Shannon Stockdale, references that trace back to AsianWeek), the "Sex crimes" and the "mail order brides" section will be empty. I believe that they are relevant to Asian fetish but lack reliable sources. I propose including actual sex crime incidents in the sex crimes section and use that as the starting point. миражinred 09:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Its one thing for you to believe they're relevant. Do we have a reliable source making the connection? If we don't, its original research.--Crossmr (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Well there's one in "Stereotyping of..." regarding mail order bride. But I guess that's it for now. миражinred 18:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes the current citation in the sex crimes section is nothing but an op ed piece with no backing. I know there is some talk above about removing the citation entirely, but until that is concluded, those citations need to be merged, they're pointing to the same source. No point in making it look like two different citations.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Asianweek is a fine source. They fired Kenneth Eng and apologized for the racist article that he posted. Please stop acting like the whole publication can be written off. You need to justify that this source is not valid. Anybody who claims it's invalid is justing making their own opinion. Also If we are going to merge all the citation I noticed that Quan have been cited twice. So those two citation will have to be merged. With this spirit of consolidation we will have to truncate the "Other views" section since all the sentences are saying the same thing. Also this anti oped attitude will mean much of the source for the "Other views" section will have to be deleted as they are nearly all oped pieces. Tkguy (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about the fact that a cite name was used for the article and used in two places, but in a third place the article was again cited but without using the cite name which made it look like two different sources instead of one. The quan article appears to be properly sourced twice by using a cite name so that it only appears as a single source.--Crossmr (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please replace the following sentence under "Association with sex crimes against Asian women". The sentence was obviously truncated and in its current state does not make sense as to what "proclivity" is referring too. As you can see the old sentence is much clearer and accurately reflect the content of the source.

Some Asian American authors and activists claim that the proclivity has dangerous implications

To a new and improved version without the weasel word and I believe more neutral.

According to some Asian American authors and activists, the proclivity that Asian fetish is a benign phenomenon can have dangerous implications. [6][7][5]

Tkguy (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

except you're introducing point of view with that change. You're making a claim for many which I don't see supported with references.--Crossmr (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The version I am presented is part of the version that was there a long time ago [15:04, 26 February 2007]. This page has been vandalized for a very long time. People trying to delete any and everything on this page. And the following is the portion of the article this statement is summarizing. It is letting the source "speak for itself". I don't know where you are coming from. And I hope the admin who reads this will understand what is happening here. The current state of the entry does not make any sense the term "proclivity" is not referring to anything. It's apparent it got that way because people are once again trying to get rid of any and everything off this page. Tkguy (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
“ Yin Ling Leung, organizational director of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF), said this was more than an isolated incident by a psychologically unstable man. “It’s not the first time, and it won’t be the last,” Leung said. “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.”

“It’s happened on an epidemic proportion,” Zia added. “It’s this 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.”

Part of the problem is a widespread belief that men who have a fetish for Asian women are harmless. “Asian fetish is seen as a tongue-in-cheek thing, like ‘We just happen to like Asian women,’” Leung said. “It’s not as innocent as it looks.”

Yale junior Shannon Stockdale, co-chair of NAPAWF’s Yale chapter InSight, said Asian fetish is cavalierly discussed on campus. “It’s like a benign thing and there’s no stigma,” Stockdale said. “People are very open about it. It remarks on society’s acceptance of it.”

“It goes so deep,” Leung explained. “We have to end the militarization of the sex industry, the proliferation of porn, and the marketing of Asian women as mail order brides and the Internet catalog industry. We have huge work to do.”

“It’s really hard for Asian Pacific American women to come forward because there’s a ton of shame, self-blame and embarrassment,” Leung said. She says campus health and safety groups must also become more culturally competent. “In American and European culture, there’s a lot more of ‘It’s not my fault, and I’m gonna make a big stink about it.’”

 ”
That's oped by someone with a vested interest in the subject making a claim. Not a scientific study on what society as a whole believes.--Crossmr (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Let it be noted that you no longer have a "your introducing point of view" issue, if you still do please elaborate with a lot of words what it is about what I am proposing that's bringing "my point of view" into this. As for your new argument about this article being oped by someone with a vested interest. What do you mean by this? Are you implying that wikipedia needs to check the credentials of the journalists of all the articles that's being cited? are you implying that an asian publication is not a valid source? Please make it clear exactly what is the issue. The more words the better. Tkguy (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't try to tell me what my issue is. I didn't say you were introducing your own point of view just that a point of view was being introduced with that rewording. I also explained what that point of view was after you provided the text. My point is that this claim about how common this feeling is is presented without the citation of a study by a person who has a vested interest in that point of view. I'm stating that a quote from a special interest group on what people think shouldn't be used as reliable citation. Unless they can point to some polling or other studies done to determine this, its solely their opinion on what many people think, and honestly not that notable unless you can find several publications citing them on it.--Crossmr (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not trying to tell you what your view is. You are using words like "your" so that's means something you own. But I see you changed it to "you're" so it should have been obvious to you how I would misread your vs you're and how this changes the meaning of the sentence entirely. As for several publications. If you look at my old reference to what was put in a long time ago [15:04, 26 February 2007]. There were three references there but naturally they've been long deleted. I've updated my proposal to remove the weasel words that User:Saranghae honey have a problem with and added in the original references. If you have issues then I suggest you provide and alternative to show "good faith" editing. Otherwise provide an argument as to why it should be deleted with a specific and wordy argument. Tkguy (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
No I couldn't. Because the context of the misspelling made it quite obvious how the word was intended. As far as the previous citations go, neither support the point of view you want to change this to read. One is a college news paper and hardly notable or world-wide. The second I can't verify what it says, but its potentially only the opinion of the author (which is how its presented). and the third is the same citation we have now, which is again the opinion of an individual who is a spokesperson for a special interest group. We do not base such vague generalizations on the word of someone speaking for a special interests group. I neither need to show an alternative nor provide a "wordy" argument to show good faith. The wording you want to include isn't supported by the citation WP:V under burden of proof puts that burden squarely on you since you want to include that text.--Crossmr (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a justify the sources to you. They just need to meet wikipedia standards and they do and as for your WP:NPOV argument, well I have three sources and there are more. So it's not a tiny-minority view. Plus this is topic dealing with a minority issue so it's ok to have a minority pov according to WP:NPOV. You are going to have to back up your arguments with sources. Tkguy (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You do since they're disputed, by multiple editors at that. I see nothing on NPOV that states because this is a minority issue (exactly how are you using minority? are you referring to the fact that asians are minorities, or do you feel that asian fetishism is a minor issue?) it should give rise to more attention to minority view points. It does state that minority views should come from prominent people. A writer for a college newspaper unless she's been consistently getting the scoop of the month and shaming national press isn't a prominent individual. The director of an organization can be as long as the organizations prominence is established. But you also need to avoid using weasel words when writing this. If all you have is two potential sources, that's all you got, refer to them by name. The only time some would become acceptable in this case is if you had maybe more than 6 (As a rough example) sources stating the same thing.--Crossmr (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

N Edit declined due to lack of consensus. Sandstein (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

mail order brides

This section had a quote from phoebe that I put in which миражinred removed because there were too many Phoebe quotes on the page [diff]. If миражinred trying to get rid of this section beacause of lack of valid sources. then the phoebe quote that was removed should be added back in. There's already a valid entry in connection to Phoebe. Also considering that Tracy Quan's, a former prostitute who is a spokesperson for PONY a new york prostituation rights group, sex advice column on a "smart tabloid" publication like salon is a valid source according to many, including миражinred. on this page, then a quote from asianweek from Shannon Stockdale, co-chair of NAPAWF’s (National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum) Yale chapter InSight, should be a valid source as well. Tkguy (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Quan has written articles related to sexuality and literary criticism published in the Boston Globe, LA Times, and Houston Chronicle, among other sources. She has an article on wikipedia, so that readers can evaluate her neutrality themselves. We've cited her as a source of opinion in two sentences. Shannon Stockdale, on the other hand, was a third-year undergraduate student at the time she was quoted. Reciting four sentences of her remarks as a blockquote is undue weight. This is WP:UNDUE. Cool Hand Luke 09:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Not only that, while the title includes the term "Asian fetish", none of the people quoted refer to it as such, and is there any evidence that this in fact came from an Asian Fetish as opposed to the host of other mental issues that could have caused it? or is this simply the opinion of a newspaper editor?--Crossmr (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong. Yin Ling Leung, organizational director of the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF) made the following quote for the article:
“ Asian fetish is seen as a tongue-in-cheek thing, like ‘We just happen to like Asian women, ”
Tkguy (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Is she an expert on fetish? Doctorate in psychology? Can she cite any studies? No, then she's just the spokesperson for a special interest group. Even if she was she isn't a source independent of the subject which automatically gives her bias. If you want to start making cases for asian fetish in certain things, start finding independent reliable sources which make this claim at the least, better yet things from uninterested doctors who study it. A fetish is a recognized psychological diagnosis, but like a few other words, it has become popular to use and the way its used isn't always correct.--Crossmr (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
So only doctors of psychology are the only valid sources? You might have a point if we were talking about a purely psychological term like cognitive dissonance. But asian fetish is not such a term. If it was then you should have no trouble finding lots of valid references to support this. Once again we are only bound by the policies of wikipidia as to what may be included. Tkguy (talk) 06:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
No, those are the best sources. I also said reliable sources which are independent of the issue would also be really good. As has been raised this organization is barely a blip on the radar screen and director of it or not, that doesn't exactly make someone associated with it "prominent" as required by NPOV. asian fetish That is your opinion. I see the term as containing the word "Fetish" which is a psychological diagnosis, and as a subset of fetishism as a whole. if we're not defining the term as such we're creating further point of view when we should perhaps be using a term like "obsession" or "fixation".--Crossmr (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
[Originally posted above] I'm sorry. Just because you don't like an unrelated source, that doesn't mean we should start including blockquotes from third-year college students. In fact, I have no idea how you connect the two. The merits of each source should be discussed on their own. The Stockdale blockquote fails. Cool Hand Luke 06:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I am going to have you justify your statement. Where does it say in the wikipedia policy that a third year university student can't be used as a source for a quote? I can always summarize it if it upsets you so. Tkguy (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You are already aware of WP:V, and your feigned ignorance here is simply querulousness and disruption. *** Crotalus *** 06:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
What makes Stockdale notable? миражinred 20:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
She's co-chair of NAPAWF’s (National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum) and a Yale student and I believe she's asian, so that's makes her a pretty good source. There are three references to mail-order bride on the page right now. And you removed my Phoebe quote. So this is not a minority point of view like the claim that was made regarding adopted asian kids. It's a view held by many and is a view that is documented in many acceptable wikipedia sources. I in fact added a new source above with the long deleted http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=29233 article. I am sure there a many more deleted source from the past. So your arguments for deleting it is moot. Tkguy (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the NAPAWF seems to be a near non-entity. There are only 14 references to it on Google Books, and a mere seven on Google Scholar. (In contrast, an established organization like the NAACP garners thousands of hits, many of which are specifically about the subject, and not just passing mentions.) Being a Yale undergraduate does not make someone a reliable source, nor does ethnicity. This source fails the requirements of WP:V. *** Crotalus *** 06:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This appears to be a student chapter of the organization as well. We wouldn't even quote an ACLU student chapter, let alone an organization that couldn't pass WP:N. It seems that the only reason she was interviewed is because she was a student and a crime happened against another Ivy League student. This argument is patently frivolous. Cool Hand Luke 09:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:N is only used for determining whether or not an article can exist. It's not about whether or not a reference can be used. You people need to think up a valid reason not to include it. Since user:Saranghae honey claim that there are no valid sources, then he or she should not be deleting the quotes from this section once I put it back in. Tkguy (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
We did. WP:UNDUE. Giving so much attention to a non-notable opinion is undue weight. Cool Hand Luke 05:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:OWN, in regards to your edit summary here [8]. you do not own an article nor control it. Consensus does, if consensus feels that the text isn't appropriate to the article, insisting that it will be here regardless will not make it stay.--Crossmr (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

The University of Virginia incident needs to be removed. The citation is an article/blog and does not have editorial oversight, in fact the website even has a disclaimer stating this[9]. Unless otherwise noted, the views expressed in any article, cartoon, editorial, blog post, blog comment, or other content on CampusProgress.org are those of its author and not necessarily the official position of the Center for American Progress or Campus Progress.. I see nothing on the page backing the writer contrary to this disclaimer.--Crossmr (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed it for you. I read the article and searched for the title of it on Google. It looks like a relatively unknown op-ed piece by a little-known author; I'd put it on par with an op-ed in a college newspaper. The Facebook group doesn't exist under any name anymore anyway. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 23:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Don't suppose you could merge the citations as I described in the section just above this too could you?--Crossmr (talk) 23:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
If I understand your posts correctly, the topics that you want merged (sex crimes and mail-order brides?) aren't related to each other... or at least if we did try to draw that parallel it would be POV, asserting that every guy who wants to marry a girl from another country is a sex offender. Could you explain further, or maybe write your proposed changes on the talk page? --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
No, just the citation in Sex crimes. 13 and 14 go to the same citation, no point in having it listed twice, 14 just needs its pointer changed to that of 13, (especially since 13 is already used twice)--Crossmr (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I removed the citation whose <ref> tag didn't have a name. Now it's clear that the information is only coming from one source. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

More about Tkguy

This section is entirely a personal attack on my what is perceived as my views. If *** Crotalus *** and Cool Hand does not remove this section and apologize for their personal attack on me then I will start the arbitration proceeding that may lead to their permanent band from wikipedia. I have not decided whether or not to include anybody else in on the arbitration process. But any challenge to me regarding this will automatically be perceived as a desired to be a subject in this arbitration process. If anybody else continues to support this kind of behavior then I will include you in the arbitration process. Tkguy (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, permanent ban is unlikely unless Crotalus and other editors have been vandalizing Wikipedia for years. You've been using "arbitration" quite liberally. Arbitration usually only deals with issues with administrators and none of the users you mentioned are admins. You are a single purpose account. What you posted at other blogs like the fighting44s wouldn't have mattered if you were willing to respect Wikipedia policies and work with other editors. миражinred (speak, my child...) 02:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, arbitration is for intractable user disputes, between admins or otherwise. Besides, I am an admin. Arbitration is usually considered a final resort, and the arbitrators would probably suggest trying mediation or RfC first. For what it's worth, I'm happy with any dispute resolution you want to try Tkguy, and if you would like to open up an RfC, I know others are eager to pile on. Anyhow, I've put the alleged personal attacks under a hat, and would not object if you removed them.
I will, however, object if you edit war on this article any more. Cool Hand Luke 02:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I've asked миражinred to remove his or her personal attacks and apologize. I don't believe he or she wants too. So I will included миражinred in the arbitration request. Looks like it's going to happen since nobody is willing to remove these comments and apologize. Tkguy (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that arbitration cases review the behavior of all participants. In a relatively short time, you have accumulated a long record of bad behavior and tendentious editing regarding this issue. The most likely thing if you try to open an arbitration case is that it will be rejected, because this is largely a content dispute and because you have not attempted any other forms of dispute resolution (such as mediation). In the unlikely event that the case is accepted, you will probably receive a topic ban from this subject, as many other POV-pushers have in the past. Please review cases such as this one, where the Arbitration Committee banned someone from editing a particular subject because they were "an abusive and tendentious single-purpose account trying to professionally abuse Wikipedia for externally motivated political propaganda purposes." It's also possible that the article itself could be placed on article probation. Please carefully consider whether or not you want to engage in the arbitration process. I have done so in the past, and I believe that past history shows that arbitration often leaves all parties disappointed with the result. If you insist upon doing so, I stand behind my actions in this matter. *** Crotalus *** 04:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I also stand behind my record here at Wikipedia. I've done nothing more than cite the words of an avowed SPA and POV-pusher. Tkguy: I again recommend that you voluntarily agree to quit your sterile edit wars on this topic. Edit something else—something where your POV is less blinding. Cool Hand Luke 04:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I stand behind my actions also. Perhaps zooming in to my actions won't make them seem so pretty but I sought to edit the articles with intentions to improve them and work with other editors for the same reason. As a SPA, Tkguy generated a long list of hostile conduct to other editors and POV-pushing. With scrutiny on my part, maybe there is a small chance that I can be blocked for a short time. However, whatever happens to me cannot be worse than what will happen to Tkguy. It is not too late to rescind the arbitration, which will probably be rejected anyways. миражinred (speak, my child...) 05:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what "If anybody else continues to support this kind of behavior then I will include you in the arbitration process" is meant to imply, but I certainly give my full moral support to Crotalus horridus, Cool Hand, Saranghae honey and anyone else trying to prevent Tkguy from using this article as a personal soapbox. The personal attacks on me in the past are easy to document. Kaitenbushi (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave all who personally attacked me the opportunity to remove their disparaging comments and apologize. However, it's apparent that nobody is willing to admit their mistakes. So I removed the personal attacks on me as it does not belong on the Asian fetish talk page nor does it have any place in wikipedia and are in violation of WP:NPA. Tkguy (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As one of the admins who was sent an email, I'd like to again stress that I will not be getting involved (mostly because I protected the page, so it would be inappropriate for me to take a "side" on who is "right"). I'm only going to say this: both sides need to tone it down a bit. Especially Tkguy, stop threatening everyone with ArbCom (that includes those in this debate, as well as the uninvolved admins such as myself). That's not to say the other side has not been fair either. Remarks such as "racist POV-pusher" have no place in a civil discussion. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 21:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Aberdeenharbour

... is blocked, as the reincarnation of a known edit warrior. Users who were encouraged in their viewpoint by this user, may wish to reconsider any encouragement they were given on discussion viewpoints they were putting forward, in light of this.

FT2 (Talk | email) 21:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your information. миражinred (speak, my child...) 21:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)