Talk:Asian fetish

Critique of section: "History"

Again keeping with my previous critiques, I will leave this here for a few days to allow discussion before attempting to fix the issues I have identified.

In the 1800s, after the opening of Japan by Matthew Perry, word began to spread in the United States about the seductive femininity of Asian women.[18] Nationalistic fears that Asian women would seduce White men and destroy White families led to the passage Page Act of 1875, which prevented Chinese women from entering the United States.[18][19]

"Word began to spread" is a strange way of framing it. It assumes that Asian women are seductively feminine, instead of how the message of Asian prostitutes and geishas shaped a fantasy of Asian women as "seductive and sinister".

"Nationalistic fears that Asian women would seduce White men and destroy White families" again, doesn't mention prostitutes whereas the source text clearly does.

As early as the 1920s, it was noticed that White Dutch men preferred South East Asian women over White women.[7] When Indonesia was a colony of the Netherlands, a new beauty ideal was established, which ranked local women with light brown skin and lustrous black hair at the top.[7] The American consul general to Indonesia remarked that, to the average man, a mixed-race Indonesian woman was considered more attractive than a "pure" White woman, because White women's complexions were too pale.[7] The legacy of this colonial fetishization continues to be reflected in local literature, where women with European features (such as blond hair) are pitied, and it is written that "a golden-colored skin is the greatest gift that Allah can bestow upon a woman".[7]

While there is some truth here, this goes too far and states things too strongly. Saying "a new beauty ideal was established" makes it sound like a sexual hierarchy was virtually institutionalized. It fails to mention the economic motives from the source. The quote "a golden-colored skin is the greatest gift that Allah can bestow upon a woman" is from a Sundanese woman - it doesn't make sense to claim that an Asian woman upholding an Asian beauty standard is afflicted with colonial fetishism. Lastly, this is too long in proportion to its importance.

After World War II, the U.S. military occupied Japan, and U.S. soldiers began to interact with Japanese women.[21]

From Thomas (2021) (summaries my own, although it's a faithful approximation of the text):

• In the aftermath of WW2, the "Tokyo Rose" ideal emerged which further exoticised Asian women by allowing American GIs to "transfer their racial fantasies and hostilities"
• Military-endorsed prostitution and regulation of brothels contributed to the conception of Asian women as prostitutes.

From Nagatomo:

• Although brothels were established in an attempt to regulate sex work and reduce rapes, these were closed by the Americans due to large outbreaks of STIs.

There was a perception that Japanese women were superior to American women,[21] and there was a widespread sentiment "that a Japanese woman's heart was twice as big as those of her American sisters".[21]

You would think, reading this, that the dynamic between American GIs and Japanese women was respectful and one of mutual attraction. However, from Thomas's text:

• American soldiers in Japan, Korea, and Vietnam believed in their racial superiority and expected Asian women to be sexually available.

Nagatomo's text:

• American GIs were "swept off their feet by the deference and obedience of servile Japanese women"
• American GIs "praised the Japanese women for their kindly qualities, their submissiveness, and their eagerness to make the men comfortable"

The current article completely ignores mentions of stereotypical descriptions that put Asian women in subservient positions.

Moving on to Lim's writing on the Oriental Wave, it is indeed significant and interesting. However, the summary stops at 1959, notably before the Vietnam War. Lim states in her conclusion:

From 1959 forward, one might argue that iconic Asian American women set the stage for stereotypes that keep Asian American women in subordinate positions.

But this article decides to end it on:

[The Oriental Wave] also marked the beginning of the end of White women's dominance as the mainstream beauty ideal in America.

This is an incredible statement, and not present in the source. Here's what the source actually says:

Though Asian women triumphed over white ones in the Miss Universe pageant, the Academy Awards, and the cover of Life magazine, in differing ways each woman had to contend with body alterations to meet contem- porary standards of appearance. Through and through, their cultural iconography was predicated upon invoking European American standards of femininity.

Lastly, I believe this section needs to connect to other sections discussing war brides, sex tourism, and depictions in media as these topics are an important part of the history, too. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Critique of section: "International Marriage"

Starting with the stats rundown at the top:

• The Washington Post article is fine, if dated.
• The census data source does not include Asians. No idea where these numbers were pulled from. It seems the US Census doesn't track this. Remove.
• Likewise, for Chou (2012), she doesn't cite a source. I wouldn't question a published source if it were something the author had direct access to, but for this type of data the primary source needs to be stated. I also found a version of her text that includes the numbers, but the math doesn't math, and again, there is no primary source listed. Remove.
• Pew Research centre actually has some real numbers, but they aren't even mentioned in this article. I'm beginning to lose faith that anybody has actually read any of these sources.

This section needs to mention war brides by their name. War brides. Another example of this article viewing the subject through rose-tinted glasses.

Paragraphs about Debbie Lum and Bitna Kim belong in a different section, maybe a new section, about the perceptions of White (or Western) men with Asian fetish.

Thai section is a little fuzzy, but whatever. The Swedish men–Thai women thing is just a note from a bulletin from 2016 – no data, no trend. Questionable relevance. Remove.

Indian/Danish/Asian divorce trends (Mishra 2016): Editorial articles are not a great source for divorce statistics, especially when the primary source isn't listed. Also, what does this have to do with the topic? ShinyAlbatross (talk) 05:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits

Since there seems to only be three people here, I'll first point out that I am not the other editor you have been talking to, and I disagree with their ideas too. But you have had very strange removals of sources, User:ShinyAlbatross. Emily Rothman isn't "frankly getting it wrong", it's you who did. She doesn't reference Shor and Golriz in that point but Zhou and Paul, who are also referenced in Shor and Golriz too but you gladly choose to ignore and not add to the article. You also removed a source for simply being 19 years old, while keeping one that is 22 years old that what, fit your viewpoint instead? You grandly remove sources for not being enough thorough with their research and evidence, but freely add ones with slimmer studies, because they what, fit your viewpoint? And regarding Shot and Golriz, they fully admit they looked at Japanese pornography with full Japanese casts made for Japanese audience. How is this related to Asian fetish? Do Japanese men have an Asian fetish? Or, is this just to force your viewpoint? Of course, you forced it to the lede too. KSDerek (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we can have a reasoned discussion about this. Please tone down your accusations. What I write is reflective of what the sources say.

• On Rothman: She references both Shor & Golriz for the statistics, and Zhou & Paul for the violence study. She incorrectly assumes that Shor & Golriz is a representative sample of Pornhub, which it is not. You can read Shor & Golriz to verify this. You're right that their sample contained a significant number Japanese productions, which they also note in their study. They also state that these videos had similar amounts of violence compared to Western-produced videos with Asian women, so it doesn't change their finding. As well, Pornhub's audience is equally relevant as its content producers.
• I kept Zhou & Paul in this article and there's nothing wrong with their research.
• Which source did I remove for being 19 years old?

ShinyAlbatross (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, if you're going to criticize things I added, be more specific so that we can discuss them. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we can have a reasoned discussion after you add the sources back. I mean I am at a bit of a loss at what to do here. I want to show a good will, and I don't want to revert to the stable state, but you removed so many sources that it would look like I am messing the page up if I started adding them one by one back. What else can I do? I also have no idea what you're talking about with the Rothman statistics and violence study differentiation. On page 63 in the middle paragraph there is no Shor and Golriz, only Zhou and Paul. It literally begins with "Zhou and Paul randomly sampled..." PornHub isn't even mentioned in that paragraph. Shor and Golriz also do not mention that there was similar amounts, they specifically point out how much more there is in Japanese. I am bewildered at what you are writing, because it's the exact opposite of what's written. And you fully just removed the Hyphen magazine and other sources. And that was simply about trans women in pornography, so I don't understand why you removed it either. Are you fully comprehending everything? KSDerek (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Both Zhou & Paul and Shor & Golriz were studies on aggression, not overall demographic analyses.

From Rothman:

Exceptions include two content reviews from the 1990s,43 and one recent content analysis by Zhou and Paul (2016) on videos taken from the “Asian women” category of Xvideos.com.64 In addition, some basic informa- tion about the race of performers is available. In their analysis of 172 Pornhub videos uploaded between 2000 and 2016, Shor and Golriz found that ap- proximately 55% of pornography featured a white man, 30% featured a Black man, 10% featured an Asian man, and only 5% featured a Latino man. Asian women were comparatively overrepresented. Approximately 37% of pornog- raphy videos that they analyzed featured white women, 28% Black women, 16% Latina women, 1% Middle Eastern women, and 17% Asian women.51 For comparison purposes, according to the 2018 American Community Survey, the population of the United States is 72% white, 18% Hispanic or Latino, 13% Black or African American, and 5% Asian—so Black and Asian men and women appear to be overrepresented as pornography performers.

The demographic statistics are from Shor & Golriz.

Zhou and Paul randomly sampled 3,053 pornography videos from Xvideos.com and employed 27 undergraduate students in the coding of the videos in 2013. They found that Asian women were depicted differently than women of other races in pornography, were treated less aggressively, were less objectified, but also had lower agency in sexual activities.64

You're referring to this? I kept this in the article.

Also, Shor & Golriz:

Furthermore, this finding can- not be attributed to differing norms in various porn industries, as Asian female performers were likely to suffer from aggression in both Japanese- and Western-produced videos (in fact, even slightly more so in the latter).

Which is exactly what I said.

I can add Hyphen Magazine and trans pornography back in if you insist. I removed it because best-selling DVDs from 19 years ago seem a little distant (and not as good a source as I'd like), but I don't have a strong objection. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Shor and Golriz specifically write "videos featuring Asian men were significantly more likely to portray male aggression" and "all of these videos were products of the Japanese adult entertainment industry, which has unique characteristics that distinguish it from Western pornography. This industry includes notable and popular genres that often portray women as victims and men as molesters and abusers". I did not notice that that short sentence you picked up, and I have no idea what they base it upon because it disagrees with everything they have written besides that, but just before that sentence I noticed they write "This finding is especially counterintuitive with respect to Asian female performers, as they seem to stand in contrast with both previous literature about the most common media images of Asian women (Hagedron, 1997; Nakamatsu, 2005; Uchida 1998) and the recent study by Zhou and Paul (2016)". They even write that their findings disagree with general findings, yet you somehow managed to force it to be the general findings in the lede. There is obviously no consensus in literature yet you synthed there to be one in the lede. And I was talking about including the Rothman source, which is secondary source and thus preferred on Wikipedia over primary. KSDerek (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Everything they wrote is logically consistent. It depends if you are looking at Asian men or Asian women. This article's focus is Asian women.

Here's how I understand it:

1. There are many videos with white men, and a percentage (say 10% for simplicity's sake) contain Asian women.

2. Other than Japanese productions, there are not very many videos with Asian men. Say 1%, also for simplicity's sake.

3. There are Japanese productions that are 100% Asian men with Asian women. Say that there are the same number of these videos as there are Western productions featuring White men with Asian women.

4. Both the Japanese productions and the Western productions with Asian women have a high proportion of violent content, compared to videos without Asian women.

If these 4 things are all true, then we would truthfully say:

1. Videos featuring Asian men were significantly more likely to portray male aggression (most of those were Japanese productions) compared to White men.

2. Videos featuring Asian women were significantly more like likely to have violent content.

3. Excluding Japanese productions doesn't change things for point #2, because the Western videos with Asian women contain just as much violence (and apparently slightly more)

4. Videos with a White man and a non-Asian woman have comparatively lower rates of violence.

There's a number of possible explanations why their results differ from Zhou & Paul, not the least of which is just that it's a different website, but all we can do in this article is present both.

So we have Zhou & Paul, Shor & Golriz, and Gossett & Byrne. I believe Gossett & Byrne alone is enough to describe the results as troubling. If it was just Zhou and Shor together, you would probably say the data are inconclusive, but the different study focus in Gossett definitely points to something. Neither Zhou or Shor refutes the finding in Gossett.

I have no issue citing the Rothman text, as long as a note is included that the demographics provided are erroneous. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

To begin with Shor and Golriz specify looking at a category called "Asian/Japanese" and with just 35 (total 172) videos compared to Zhou and Paul who looked at 3053 videos. They also specifically have a table of the pairings so you don't need to guess. We can see that when there is an Asian woman, the odds of there being aggression is lower than when there is an Asian man, thus disproving your theory, because it is decreased by the content with non-Asian men having lower rate of it. And you keep pointing out the 19 year old age of the Hyphen source, but have no trouble touting the 22 year old Gossett, which again makes no differentiation between the sourcing of the content and doesn't mention the word "fetish" even once. None of this is related to Asian fetish. They all seemingly looked at Japanese pornography made for Japanese. No conclusions about Asian fetish can be made from that. KSDerek (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I think you're well into performing your own analysis with this comment. If you're going to disagree with the authors then you should have irrefutable evidence.

Table 4

Aggression (visual)

White man with Asian woman: 9.01

Asian man with Asian woman: 6.45

You keep talking like Shor and Zhou can't both be right. They can both be right. They were studies on two different websites using two different methods. Zhou's study has more precision because of the larger sample, sure, but that doesn't amplify the finding.

"Keep pointing out"? I said I have no objections to adding Hyphen back in.

I seriously think you should take a break and cool down. I'm making completely well-reasoned points and you're just coming back again and again with misgivings about the study. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Well cherrypicked column from the table. Here's the rest.

Title suggesting aggression

White man with Asian woman: 1.04

Asian man with Asian woman: 2.76

% of video showing aggression (OLS)

White man with Asian woman: 6.73

Asian man with Asian woman: 28.75

Aggression (nonconsensual)

White man with Asian woman: 1.53

Asian man with Asian woman: 2.53

You have not proven any of your claims. Please stop getting into personalities and talking about me, and rather talk of how your mass removal of sources makes sense. KSDerek (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't cherry-pick anything, the authors picked that for their discussion. They probably did that because both those numbers reached statistical significance, whereas with the numbers you listed, only the 28.75 was statistically significant.

In general, though, I don't have to prove anything. The study says this, and that's what the article goes with.

I have several thousand words above explaining my rationale for various changes. If you have an issue with any removals, tell me specifically which ones. However, I'm less and less willing to deal with you the more you try to argue against published research here. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You did cherrypick, and so did the authors. You talked of Rothman being unreliable, but Shor and Gorliz are with their tiny number of videos and cherrypicked focus points compared to Zhou and Paul. Even Shor and Gorliz said the literature generally disagrees with their findings. What do you say about that? And as already shown, your offered "rationale" is wholly wrong. You completely misread Rothman and apparently "accidentally" cut out sources from the article that you say you're going to return but don't. And now you're say you're not willing to deal with me anymore? Well what point is there for me to pinpoint this and that if you're not even responding then? KSDerek (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you don't like this study. That's really too bad, but I think I'm done trying to help you understand it. Like I said, if you have further objections past Rothman and Hyphen, I'm all ears. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

For one, you removed the large starting paragraph with sources from the interracial marriages section. Your reasoning was that it wasn't related to the Asian fetish and it wasn't sourced well enough (I don't see anything wrong with the sources for the simple numbers in the prose). Now, I don't fully disagree with idea of it not being related, but how is the whole pornography section related then? Or the sex tourism section? Should we remove them as well? Like pointed out, the sources usually don't even mention "fetish". KSDerek (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Of marriage stats, only Washington Post was accurate, but it's from 1998 and frankly, it's not that interesting. Imbalanced marriage rates could equally be explained by White women discriminating against Asian men (which is pretty well-documented)

Marriage vs porn and sex tourism, hmm! I can definitely think of some reasons why those things are different. Which of those allow you to filter for "Asian" up front? ShinyAlbatross (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

How are those sources incorrect? There was one dead source you could have simply used web archive to get the archival link for. What discrimination of Asian men by White women? And what filtering? KSDerek (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

So many questions! I have explained my findings on the sources above. How about you make a positive case for why you think that interracial marriage is relevant? ShinyAlbatross (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Not really for these matters? And concerning that, like I wrote, I'm not arguing everything is relevant, I'm asking why according to you some aren't and some are even if they don't mention "fetish" once. KSDerek (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

1. If you're serious about discussing these issues, don't turn it into a revert war.

2. Okay, so if you agree it's not relevant, the source quality doesn't matter.

3. It seems like you're in need of a definition of what Asian fetish means, exactly. Zheng's 2016 paper is probably the best source you will get on this, and can be supplemented by Zheng's chapter in the 2022 Routledge text titled "Sex, Marriage, and Race". ShinyAlbatross (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not a revert war as three editors have reverted you now, that's just undoing vandalism. You offer nothing but point to Zheng? Whose text you have massively removed from the article? There's no logic in that argument. KSDerek (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• One editor other than yourself did a revert (the IP users are the same) of one section only. We discussed, I sorted out their misconceptions, and did a new edit incorporating new information.
• I kept all of Zheng. In fact, I kept most of the same sources.

ShinyAlbatross (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

These are the diffs: [1], [2]

One can understand why you'd ignore the IP because you have apparently now listed a sock puppet investigation against me, accusing me of being the IP editor? You completely missed out on there having been two IP editors of this article and only focused on the other, even combing through history only picking up their edits. It's bizarre that you'd even start an investigation listing against past IP edits.

And no, you didn't keep most of Zheng, and well keeping "most" of the old sources is surely highly gracious of you...

By this point I have to say you have clearly zero intent at coming to any sort of agreement or compromise, and are here only to harass and edit fight. KSDerek (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

So, it seems like he's not responding anymore and the investigation was simply closed. I'm asking others, like the IP editor who has frequented this article or others like User:A Rainbow Footing It, do you support or don't support reverting the mass removal of sources etc. by this editor? KSDerek (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I proposed a solution to this disagreement on your talk page, which you saw.

It's required to discuss here if you disagree with me. Asking User:A Rainbow Footing It to form a brigade against me here is not allowed. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It's called a consensus... Before responding here I responded on the talk page, telling you to respond to my reply here. KSDerek (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Recruiting users who are likely to support your view is not allowed. You can only request input from impartial users.

I'll say once that I'm expecting this conversation to be WP:CIVIL.

What would you like me to respond to? The three reverts?

First one – I discussed the matter. Whoever those IP users were, they aren't coming back. I made a fresh edit after a week of no response.

Second one - I agree with that revert (and it was on one edit only). Makes sense to me.

Third one was you and you haven't discussed the specifics of what you find objectionable. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

If the users in question are the only ones participating then there isn't much choice. I don't know what has happened at this article before my time. And I understood the SPI clerk to simply mean the IPs are dynamic thus he doesn't expect the same IPs to continue editing, not that the editor will stop. And should I repeat myself? You didn't keep most of Zheng, and you say you kept "most" of the old sources which doesn't sound very constructive. You haven't responded to the numerous questions about how Shor and Golriz say the general literature has differed with their findings, which is contrary to the line you keep pushing to the lede. KSDerek (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

A Rainbow Footing It has never contributed to this page, apparently.

Before my edits, Zheng was cited heavily in the "Psychological effects" section, once in "Research on racial preferences", twice in the lede, using two sources. After my edits, Zheng is cited heavily in the "Psychological effects" section, once in "Research on racial preferences", once in the lede, using two sources. So overall, I removed one citation in the lede, because it was more citing Zheng citing Lewis (2012).

Shor & Golriz called their findings "counterintuitive", because it was in contrast to studies on (non-pornographic) media images, and found the opposite trend as Zhou & Paul. In terms of wide content analyses, there's only Zhou & Paul and Shor & Golriz. There's no reason both of these studies can't be true. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Zheng (2016) was cited 12 times before, now just 8. Not that the citation count is even the actual text I'm talking about. And they write "in contrast to previous literature". And they mention pornography too, not just non-pornographic. Why do you lie so much constantly? KSDerek (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can remove the personal attack or this conversation is not going to continue. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, what else would you call that? How can you have a conversation when the other person simply makes up things? You make more synth than even the IP editor from before. And it's you who needlessly just started an SPI against me and didn't even apologise for it. KSDerek (talk) 05:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand your offence at the SPI, so I'm sorry that I falsely accused you. Try to see it from my perspective when I saw how new your account is and the circumstances here.

Can we continue with the discussion? ShinyAlbatross (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

And to fit their whims they just stop responding, having been proven wrong but wikilawyering on some red herring slight. I added many of their additions back in. I didn't mass revert. What they just do is mass remove sources, mass revert everything and then wikilawyer about the other side edit warring. KSDerek (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I noticed you had added some other sources. Your "Racial Violence against Asian Americans" doesn't mention fetish even once. After that for the violence statement in the lede you have added a bunch of non-scientific pop culture articles like from Teen Vogue. KSDerek (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I would like this discussion to be productive. I really would.

Your comments here, here, and especially here are rude and unhelpful. If a productive discussion is to take place, it needs to be respectful. I'm more than open to discussions about improving the article but incivility toward me is is really preventing that. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean, you just posted "Can we continue with the discussion?" after all the replies (that much is obvious because it would block you from posting if there is an edit conflict). Now that I brought up very simple points, you simply suddenly decide to not to respond. Again, for the how manieth time. KSDerek (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@KSDerek: sorry for taking so long to respond. I do support the mass reversion of the recent changes hy ShinyAlbatross, except where consensus was already achieved where they were helpful. The biggest problem here is their own enormous deletion of sourced content (which they have also done elsewhere...), which again does not appear to be based on any real reasoning. The isssue is not the addition of new content to the article, but their vast deletion of content. Meaning their additions are perfectly fine to add where they are reliably sourced and accurate. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@A Rainbow Footing It I suggest you stay out of this discussion, given previous history, as you have ostensibly never edited this page before and entering at this point could be seen as WP:CANVASS. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am a lurker on this page. I do not believe that telling User:A Rainbow Footing It to stay out of this discussion is well founded. There seems to be consensus in their favor, it seems you are the only one in disagreement.

I would like to see my name to the hat of users in agreement with KSDerek and User:A Rainbow Footing It, they are both in the right on this one. Upon the rein of a wimpling wing (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Changes on Sep 30 - notes

Interview with porn performers

Received a "failed verification" note on the comment on anti-Asian violence. See these quotes from the article:

The industry has not exactly been sensitive or responsive to these discussions. Shortly after the Atlanta shootings...

Kush was also taken aback when a distribution company tagged her in a tweet promoting a scene titled “Asian Massage Invasion” shortly after the attacks. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You should add your signatures to each section if you want responses in each. So for this, there is nothing about anti-Asian violence, only a mention about the same incident you base everything on, and even that is just barely tied to one person through a tweet, so nothing like in the prose where you make it seem like they all talk about it in detail. It's very synth-like prose to make them say what you want them to say. KSDerek (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

There's "nothing about anti-Asian violence" in this source? Huh?? "just barely tied to one person through a tweet"?

All I can say is, you should read the article again if you truly believe this. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

That is a non-answer. You yourself pointed out the quotes you think mention it, but obviously don't? KSDerek (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what to tell you – I don't even know what you're claiming here. The quotes (and the article) clearly support the statement. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

They don't even mention violence. The first one has the author speaking, and none of the people you are claiming as the voices of it. Do you not see how there is no logical connection here? The second one has ONE of the people mention a tag of a tweet of scene with a title about Asian massages some time after a shooting at an Asian massage establishment. That is about sensitivity of a scene to a recent tragedy at a similar establishment, what connection is there to your claim? All you have is a vague original research interpretation and even then it's just one person and their reaction to a Twitter tag, not even them saying anything. KSDerek (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure you've even read the article now – if the question is "Do the interviewees criticize the industry in its response to anti-Asian violence?" the answer is obviously "yes". ShinyAlbatross (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

But there was no such question? How is that not original research, trying to read between the lines? Remember what the other IP editor did before? They added their own interpretations of what apparently the sources intended. Both you and I removed those "interpretations" as they weren't per source. KSDerek (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Shor & Golriz, Zhou & Paul

There is nothing wrong with either of these studies and both should be included. One editor takes issue with Shor & Golriz, saying that the sample size was much smaller. However, the field of statistics tells us when a finding is significant, and (indirectly) whether our sample was too small to determine anything. Different thresholds exist, but p < 0.05 is generally the threshold of significance in most fields. Shor & Golriz report on their findings which reach that level of significance.

Differences in their findings are far more likely to be the result of different methodologies — and it's easy to spot the ways in which they are different. For example:

• They were conducted on different websites
• Shor & Golriz included "forceful penetration" as a criterion, and Zhou & Paul did not, perhaps because of coding challenges
• Shor & Golriz used a convenience sampling method focusing on popular videos, Zhou & Paul went to great lengths to try to sample random videos. Random videos are ideal for studying what is posted on the website, but popular videos are better for studying what people are actually watching on the website. Neither is superior - it depends on the question you are trying to answer.

I wouldn't go so far as to discuss these points in the article, because I think that's not Wikipedia's job. But I'm offering a plausible explanation for why the results were in opposite directions and that they do not directly contradict each other.

By placing undue emphasis on the sample size, I think this could be seen as non-neutral presentation of the research. The article should just present both neutrally.

Besides that, saying Asian women are more/less likely to be subjects to violence compared to White women does not make violence unconcerning. All violence is concerning, period, and researchers try to understand the reasons for violence. Those reasons might plausibly be rooted in racial stereotypes. Gender+racial motivations for violence are worth discussion (especially when high-quality sources discuss it) regardless of whether that violence is more or less than a different group. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing about fetish in these sources as mentioned, which is what has been mentioned numerous times. And the other problems brought up weren't touched upon at all, that they include Japanese pornography ie certainly not fetish pornography and that secondary sources should be preferred. You had criticized and removed a different source apparently just for being 19 years old but have no issue with the older 2002 source based on just 56 images found on the internet? The sources were presented with just the facts but you keep wanting to add your prose. So, should the prose be removed? KSDerek (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not necessary that every source directly say the word "fetish" if it's a related issue and relevance to the topic has been established elsewhere.

We've been on this topic before. Shor & Golriz: "Furthermore, this finding cannot be attributed to differing norms in various porn industries, as Asian female performers were likely to suffer from aggression in both Japanese- and Western-produced videos (in fact, even slightly more so in the latter)."

Rothman: again, we've been here before, and I'm not repeating all of what was said. Rothman is a reliable source except for the description of Shor & Golriz. Rothman also didn't say what you wrote she did.

Source removed for being 19 years old: I said you could add it back (although I think the information added was trivial). Again, we've been here before.

Gossett and Byrne is an older study, but is still relevant and talked about in much newer review articles like Forbes, Yang & Lim. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It's necessary that they touch upon the topic... Pretty pointless otherwise. And the only way relevance has been established is because you push the pornography topic from other sources now. And as mentioned, Shor and Golriz specified how the general literature had disagreed with their findings, and in that line they also cherry-picked the only category of aggression out of many where it was that way, and then you cherry-pick that line out of all, like a long line of cherry-picking to get a result, very scientific. I pointed out how Rothman doesn't mention Shor and Golriz for the part she is quoted, unlike what you stated. You oppose Rothman's use for some matter Rothman isn't even used for? So, you keep removing Rothman for not being up to your standards as a source, but not Shor and Golriz, who are very cherry-picking in their interpretations and methods? And you have never added the 19 year old back even though you have talked about it many times. Gossett and Byrne is another bizarre source. They looked at 56 images in 2002. That is a bizarre sampling even in 2002. Is this source up to your standards even though it clearly seems very shoddy? KSDerek (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Shor and Golriz say their study "seem to stand in contrast" with previous studies, and then provided some theories as to why
• It's not for you to say whether a study is good or bad. Researchers obtain years of education and go through peer review to try to ensure their study is good. For Wikipedia's purposes, it only has to come from a reliable source.
• Rothman misinterpreted Shor & Golriz as a content demographics study, which it is not
• "Rothman deems that the findings of the depictions of Asian women in pornography aren't consistent" is not supported by what Rothman writes
• Other sections of Rothman's text are fine

We've had this discussion before. Please go back and re-read previous threads if you have more questions. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

And you have never added the 19 year old back even though you have talked about it many times.

Please, go ahead. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

For the first point, exactly, and pushing only one side to the lede is unbalanced. And like you write, it's not for you to decide whether a study is bad, so why do you keep removing Rothman? Who decided that? And you claim you found some unrelated mistake in Rothman to decide it's bad? That portion isn't even what it's used for? Rothman is most of all secondary source, which is preferred. And Rothman quotes Zhou and Paul about the statement on Asian pornography, and writes that race based pornography content analyses are rare and that "so few content analyses have been conducted to answer questions about how depictions of people by race may be evolving over time, and about racism and pornography". It's not focusing on just Asian in that part, so it could be changed to "findings of the depictions of Asian women and race in pornography aren't consistent or comprehensive" or something to that effect. So, which sections by Rothman are fine? We have had this discussion but you haven't been willing to talk much before. And how would you be willing to accept old sources back? I also noticed that in the research section the 1995 study was removed, the 2020 study was removed and key information about the 2013 Lin study was removed. Your explanations for the removals are very sparse, like apparently your reason for removing the 1995 source is again because you simply deem it not reliable enough on your own accord. For the how manieth source. The type of reasoning you use for removing the 1995 reference would very well apply to removing Gossett and Byrne too, and it's at the heart of your claims. KSDerek (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• In Rothman's case, it's simply a mistake, the way a typo is a mistake. It's not that I'm saying the evidence is insufficient or that Rothman is stretching the logic. In those cases, it's inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to judge. WP:WSAW
• As I said above: "saying Asian women are more/less likely to be subjects to violence compared to White women does not make violence unconcerning. All violence is concerning, period, and researchers try to understand the reasons for violence. Those reasons might plausibly be rooted in racial stereotypes. Gender+racial motivations for violence are worth discussion (especially when high-quality sources discuss it) regardless of whether that violence is more or less than a different group"
• I'm not sure what those other studies have to do with this. They don't; and my reasoning was solid for any changes I made and I wrote down everything. And that's not the reason I removed Cunningham (1995).

ShinyAlbatross (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what it is in Rothman's case, because that portion you focus on isn't even used in the article. If you say it's wrong about an unused matter, why does that matter? Considering Woan wasn't reliable on something that it is used for, do I look for the other times it's unreliable too, on matters not related to our topic? And in your second point you write "regardless of whether" "more or less", yet you only seem to push one view in the lede, why is that? You seem to acknowledge there being a discussion, a disagreement, two views, yet why does only one view get allowed in the lede? And I pointed out the other studies you cut, because you cut them for reasons one could also apply to Gossett and Byrne and its strange evidence of 56 images, which was odd a long time ago too, considering that wasn't there text and a reference about violence in pornography decreasing over time at the page for Pornography? If we apply that logic, is this study simply out of date? Also, when I was just reading on some guidelines, I was reminded that Woan specifies their article being from a standpoint of critical race theory and feminist jurisprudence. The Wikipedia lede for that theory holds that "Academic critics of CRT argue it is based on storytelling instead of evidence and reason, rejects truth and merit, and undervalues liberalism." I'm not here to argue about that, but clearly it is a controversial theory, and I think we can both agree on categorizing the article's standpoint as a radical viewpoint, can we not? KSDerek (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Miller & McBain, Rothman

Rothman doesn't say the thing it says she did. I think Rothman should be an excellent source, except for the obvious way Shor & Golriz is misinterpreted (see my previous comments on Rothman). Rothman's text should not be used to describe Shor & Golriz.

Miller & McBain is fine, but doesn't add any new information. The original wording of "Studies of more general pornography have shown mixed results" is fine, but I'll keep Miller & McBain since it's a secondary source. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea why you hate including Rothman so much and keep removing it. Earlier, I pointed out how you misread Rothman completely. It's completely Wikipedia recommended style of secondary source commentary on those studies and in a respectable textbook on the topic. KSDerek (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You said I misread Rothman completely, but I don't know your reason, and I don't believe I did. Again, we had this conversation already. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Like pointed out above, you claim Rothman was used for something it wasn't. KSDerek (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

General wordsmithing

I don't see any good reasons to change these. For example, changing "Asian women report a number of harms" to "There may be a number of harms" with the reason given that Asian fetish is not specific to Asian women. Sure, but the sources talk about Asian women specifically, which is true of 99% of this article. Increasingly I think this article should just cover heterosexual, male -> female Asian fetish in the United States since that's what the vast majority of writing is about, reserving a section for alternative framings.ShinyAlbatross (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Like I mentioned, you yourself had edited the article to be about Asian men facing it too, but now you only want to focus on Asian women when it comes to the negatives? And even the original wording would ask for a "who?" template because who is the text talking about? That language is not at all Wikipedia style. KSDerek (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

In principle, "Asian fetish" is agnostic to sexual orientation and gender. But as a social phenomenon which is defined and discussed in popular and academic sources, the vast majority focus exclusively on heterosexual American men and Asian women.

When the source is doing this, the article should do this. Plain and simple. To frame it from the opposite direction, turning it into the generalized statement "There may be a number of harms" is not properly supported because there is no source saying this for gay/straight Asian men or gay Asian women. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

You'd have to add a source for that claim. Because for now we have a source talking about it applying to men too and you even added text to that effect. If there is a source that only looks at women's issues, without it specifying that the fetish only concerns women, well, you can't claim it does. What alternative do you offer to that line then? KSDerek (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Turning it into the generalized statement "There may be a number of harms" is not properly supported because there is no source saying this for gay/straight Asian men or gay Asian women ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

So, what is supported by sources then? Definitely not your "Asian women report". Again, that would require "who?" template. Who are you talking about? In the body you have "Targets of Asian fetish report". Why is it suddenly Asian women in the lede? Why did you change it for the lede? So, I assume you will be happy if I change it to 100% your text with "Targets of Asian fetish report"? Or not? You don't want your own text from the body to be used in the lede to point at that text in the body? KSDerek (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources relating to connection to violence

I've added 3 secondary, academic sources to support these claims: Forbes, Zheng, and Woan. One should really be enough. If there is an opposing voice here, find it in a reliable source and add it to the article. But so far, I haven't found any source that says there is no link between Asian fetish and anti-Asian violence.ShinyAlbatross (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Not that you added the other two, but those mentions are notably based on the 2002 study of the 56 pornography images which they reference. That is used by all except Zheng who then only very briefly mentions the matter with Woan as a source, so in the end it's based on it too. These sources predate the other studies. And the focus is not on the fetish but pornography. As we see in the earlier mentioned secondary sources, like Rothman which you keep removing for whatever reason, they say it's mixed whether that pornography is linked to violence, so yes, it's contrary, so it's ridiculous to claim in the lede based on the few mentions and ignore other sources. You already had it in the body, but try to force it in the lede even though it's a controversial view. And you added the Harvard Law back with a quote about the WW2 internments and 1992 Los Angeles riots? Are you mistaking this article for just general racism article? It clearly doesn't belong. KSDerek (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Being based on one incident isn't a strike against notability — single incidents can be extremely important historical events.

But you're also wrong about that. Forbes et al cite 3 studies in addition to the Atlanta spa shooting. Zheng cites 5 more (including Woan). Woan (2008) mentions many specific incidents:

• An infamous issue of Penthouse featuring Asian women being bound and tortured, some ambiguously shown as potentially even dead, which inspired a nation-wide anti-pornography protest.
• Two months after this issue, the incident of an eight-year-old Chinese girl being raped and lynched
• The 2005 case of Princeton University student Michael Lohman going around cutting Asian women's hair off and pouring his urine and semen into their drinks over 50 times,
• The 2001 case of David Dailey and Eddie Ball abducting and raping two Japanese schoolgirls
• The 2002 case of Richard Borelli Anderson murdering Lili Wang at North Carolina State University

... and the heading of this section in Woan's text is "Case of the Asian Fetish Syndrome".

I do think that overall, content analyses of pornography are rather thin and aging, and pornography has changed so much in the last 20 years. But there is no contrary or superceding evidence against Gossett & Byrne, and it gets a mention in Forbes et al., a high-quality secondary source published just last year. I'm completely open to an opposing viewpoint here, it only needs to be found in a reliable source.

Anyway, you said I ignored other sources. Which sources would those be? ShinyAlbatross (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It is when it's not talked about afterwards. Also, your interpretation of sources is very liberal again. The two main issues you bring up for Woan are both in one short sentence in a footnote, attributing it to "Helen Zia". But Woan is seemingly misreading the author, it's not Helen Zia but Sumi K. Cho. Helen Zia is the author for another work in the anthology. So, like earlier with Rothman, should this be immediately disqualified for Woan not even being able to get such simple things correct? Or does the cherry-picking of sources happen again? It's also hard to understand what evidence Woan has of these incidents being related to any fetish when there is seemingly none. I'd also be interested in where are these other sources you mention for Forbes, because Forbes talks of many things in that paragraph like sex trafficking, so which sources are used for the violence claim? And Gossett and Byrne were contrary to Zhou and Paul. And like mentioned, Gossett and Byrne is a very shoddy study based on 56 images in 2002 which was odd even in 2002. The most comprehensive study done on the matter by far is Zhou and Paul. The other sources are Rothman, which you keep removing, and Miller and McBain. KSDerek (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure where you're getting that from, this description clearly lists Zia as the author of the chapter.

If you want a contrasting viewpoint, please find it in a reliable source. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

You are right about Zia being the author, as the listing I had had Zia on the wrong line, but now when I read the source, what Woan attributes to Zia about "sexual stereotyped pornography and actual violence against Asian women" isn't there at all. Zia almost doesn't even mention pornography after the lead paragraph, where it's one of the things tied to the intersection of what makes up the "hate rape" they describe. Absolutely nothing about sexual stereotypes in pornography? Closest to that is in a sentence about a black woman: "Investigators could have raised issues of those white men's attitudes towards the victim as a black woman, found out whether hate speech of race-specific pornography was present, investigated the overall racial climate on campus, and brought all of the silenced aspects of the incident to the public eye." That was the closest it got, which isn't anywhere close. And they write that they looked into "hate rape" killings of Asian Americans, but could only find male victims. They spent effort to find a case like that young girl, and even then the connection is very slim, no description of the attacker and just loose timing of a murder in all of the United States. But the overall statement was that it's mostly male victims. We talked about this earlier too, you wanted sources that claim this about men being the target, and now you have it already. And like I wrote, the most comprehensive study done on the matter by far is Zhou and Paul, which is contrary to the pornography claims which are the basis in your sources using Gossett and Byrne's 56 images from 2002 as their evidence. KSDerek (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It will take a bit of time for me to source the Zia text. I doubt what you're saying is the full picture.

Nonetheless, I said at the top that one high-quality secondary source is plenty for this. You're now digging into the sources of sources, which I can't see being fruitful unless each and every one of them somehow contains a serious obvious error. Dozens of authors and journals simply don't make "mistakes" like these.

Gossett & Byrne and Zhou & Paul are two completely different studies. Zhou & Paul definitely doesn't cancel out Gossett & Byrne, or Shor & Golriz for that matter. High quality secondary sources agree. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, found it.

Contains 5 examples of violence against Asian women. Zia's point was that these incidents are rarely investigated as hate crimes, even when there is ample reason for suspicion.

If you're looking for a connection between pornography and violence, there's another essay in the same anthology, page 518. "Using Pornography".

Or, I mean, just look at Gossett & Byrne, which is what Woan does. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

But you have done exactly what I did. Before, you looked at sources of sources and removed references based on that. You claimed that a source in a source was just a blog post. Well, I can't find that Mason 2016 anymore. Again, you are allowed to do all kinds of things, yet deny them from me. And I also noticed that the study by Gossett and Byrne isn't even based on 56 images from 2002, but from 1999, so by this point 26 years old. They also qualified that any site which had text "rape" or "forced" to be of rape porn, so anything on one of the sites they listed (none of which work anymore): "rape.bizarre.nu.html" seemingly qualified as rape porn according to them. Whereas Zhou and Paul looked at a large number of recent videos on a major website, and actually qualified the behavior seen in the videos according to different metrics. And high quality secondary sources like Miller and McBain or Rothman, which disagree with the one-sided interpretation? And you found Zia, and wrote nothing about pornography in it, which is what it is used for in Woan, so you yourself proved Woan is reading sources in a very strange fashion. And Gossett and Byrne, again, hardly function to support their own findings with the odd small bit of evidence they quickly looked up, let alone the freeform interpretations based on it. KSDerek (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Tourism section

Regarding the "not relevant" tagging of this section, I partially agree that some claims in this section are somewhat tangential and not directly connected to the article topic. Western men paying for sexual services in Asia alone isn't enough to claim "fetish", since there are a number of different possible motivations, and it's very difficult to identify/quantify each one.

However, Abramson & Pinkerton do make direct mention of fetish:

Tourism to Asia is organized within the political economy of global relations and derives its market value from the general commodification of the “Orient” as well as the commodification of leisure and pleasure. Current constructions of “Asia” are successors to the Orient of nineteenth-century imperialism, travelers’ tales, early anthropology, and their associated projects, all resulting in the collapse of the exotic and erotic to create a fetishized, imagined Other with little attention to empirical veracity (Said, 1978; Kabbani, 1986; Marcus, 1992).

[Edward] Said, and others following his lead, have argued that current constructions of “Asia” are successors to the fetishized, largely mythic, geographically proximate, and sometimes faithless “Orient” of the nineteenth century (Said, 1978; Kabbani, 1986; Cocks, 1989; Marcus, 1992; Suleri, 1992), such that the popular representations of Asia in general, and countries such as Thailand in particular, are a sentimental mix of the erotic and exotic.

This section could be pared down and linked to Sex tourism as a "see also". ShinyAlbatross (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If there is one source that mentions "fetishized" in passing in two parts, and seemingly just talking of the image of the countries, it's not much to go on? KSDerek (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm all for improvement of this section. I don't think it should be eliminated, since sex tourism is mentioned in numerous sources as well (e.g. Woan, since I was just looking at it). I'm also cognizant this article is already too long and probably a paragraph or two is enough. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Woan has been shown to be fairly unreliable in their interpretations, interpreting everything to be fetish without any evidence, and like shown they also get simple things you quote them for wrong. KSDerek (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

See above – Woan is fine. There's opinion involved, but it's well-researched and published. If you want to present a different opinion, find it in a reliable source. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

We established above that Woan is fairly liberally quoting the sources, coming up with things that weren't really said in them. And like I wrote, the most comprehensive study done on the matter by far is Zhou and Paul, which is contrary to the pornography claims which are the basis in your sources using Gossett and Byrne's 56 images from 2002 as their evidence. And we have secondary sources Miller and McBain and Rothman. Like let's get to the root of your sources. All the evidence all your sources base their claims on are the Gossett and Byrnett 2002 study on 56 images, which was strange even in 2002. Then you have Shor and Golriz, which quoting you "Shor and Golriz say their study "seem to stand in contrast" with previous studies, and then provided some theories as to why" and talk about how Japanese pornography that their study heavily bases itself on is more aggressive, but in one sentence they cherry-picked one category of aggression where it was the opposite, and you also cherry-picked that sentence out of all the text. Are these two the basis of your actual evidence besides just claims? Considering we also have evidence in contrast like Zhou and Paul, and Miller and McBain finding the general results inconclusive. There is no way you can just push one side of the interpretation in the lede. KSDerek (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, you had accused of canvassing before, but I just happened to come by canvassing to this article on a non-Wikipedia website. The person seemed interested in similar things to you, but in good faith I assume it's not you? KSDerek (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

No idea what you're referring to. Post the link - I have nothing to hide. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

If it's not you, then it's probably not ok to share. Also, I added a note that you also removed in your rush to just revert. You didn't respond to it at all either. KSDerek (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

If you want me to respond to something, post it here on the talk page. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You are allowed to leave the notes in the source. But I am not, according to you. You will simply revert me adding notes, and leave your own in. This is so unconstructive. KSDerek (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Leave all the comments you want – but if you want me to see and reply to them, put them here. ShinyAlbatross (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

So, I assume I am allowed to use notes now? Also, concerning the third dispute noticeboard listing you have made of me now, with the following text: "He has insulted me, made frivolous arguments, refused to get the point, is pushing a POV, and at this point is just wasting as much of my time as possible." If you state that I insulted you by making a negative statement about the way you argue some weeks ago, what would you call all of that then? Do you not see it's not only repeats that kind of behavior multiple times, but that noticeboard posts are also supposed to be neutral? Although I think I pointed that second part out already. KSDerek (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)