Talk:Asian fetish: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 295:

:::No one is under any obligation to leave unsourced material in a controversial article. If you can't go out and find sources for material without it being in the article that can't be helped. You can just as easily google for content with the material in or out of the article. If someone reads this talk discussion and wants to help find citations they can look in the history of the article. 2 of the sources being used were self-published sources, [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] state that for self-published sources who are not the subject you can only use them if they are published and recognized experts in the field. ''For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications''. As for revising the section, 2 of the sections you restored you made no changes. The sources still don't support the text. You reduced the exogamy section, but I still can't see anything in there that says asian fetishism is wrong. it still only states that people who are asian fetishist display better dating behaviour. If you want to restore this text you need to provide appropriate citations. ''The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.''--[[User:Crossmr|Crossmr]] ([[User talk:Crossmr|talk]]) 00:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

:::: Your last statement is simply false. The Verifiability warning posted on Wiki pages states: ''"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. "'' Note that is doesn't does not state, "This article will be deleted immmediately until it is written in a single edit with full citations". Essentailly you are making your own standard, since that is not what the standard warning states. Second, the racist aspect of the term is entirely lacking in this article. Wikipedia would not and does not have an article about "jungle fever" or some other racist stereotype and leave it totally devoid of comment about possible criticisms. It is natural that controversies in the real world are acknowledged in some fashion. I asked you for alternative means but you provide none. Essentially you simply delete all "critical" contributions and leave it 100% POV in favor of "Asian fetishism" as an idea, despite this being 1) racist and offensive to many people 2) totally unscientific (the Columbia study which disproves the term is dropped in with no explanation) and 3) not referenced anywhere other than in subcultures on the internet. This article is currently filled with mostly unsourced points of view in favor of the term. I simply am trying to balance the article to show that the term is under dispute. In its present form, it is entirely POV, and that is obviously against Wikipedia policy. To reiterate: This article is essentially 100% in favor of the term Asian Fetish as a legitimate phenomenon. The problem for you is, it is not an acceptable term, not well-known, and not undisputed. Many people consider it racist, and in fact, even proponents do not use this word in conversation around mixed couples, since it would seem racist. Yet you persist in banning all critical views from the article. Why? Are you personally in favor of this article? Your edits seem very biased. How are you held accountable for upholding NPOV? [[User:Soda80|Soda80]] ([[User talk:Soda80|talk]]) 03:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)