Talk:Stereotypes of East Asians in the United States/Archive 2

Recent reorganization of article

I disagree with a lot of the recent reorganization of the article. Currently, the article's outline is as follows:

   * 1 Historical origins
   * 2 Orientalism, mysticism, and exoticism
   * 3 Model Minority stereotype
         o 3.1 Stereotypes of Asian workforce
   * 4 Asians and stereotype threat
   * 5 Asian diversity
         o 5.1 Affirmative action
         o 5.2 Asian intelligence, IQ, and g
               + 5.2.1 Model minority
   * 6 Stereotypes of exclusion
         o 6.1 "Yellow Peril"
         o 6.2 Perpetual Foreigner stereotype
         o 6.3 Racial triangulation theory
   * 7 Language barrier as a source of comedy
   * 8 Archetypal Asians in American fiction
         o 8.1 Fu Manchu: "Evil" Asian
         o 8.2 Charlie Chan: "Good" Asian
   * 9 Stereotypes of Asian men
         o 9.1 Emasculation
         o 9.2 Asian gangster stereotype
         o 9.3 Predators to White women
   * 10 Stereotypes of Asian women
         o 10.1 Hypersexuality
         o 10.2 The "China Doll" stereotype
         o 10.3 The "Dragon Lady" stereotype
         o 10.4 Stereotype associated with sexual slavery
   * 11 Central and Western Asians
   * 12 See also
   * 13 References
   * 14 External links

"Stereotypes of Asian workforce" does not belong under "Model Minority" because many of the stereotypes hardly coincide with that stereotype. Working in a laundromat isn't exactly today's standard of success.

I don't think "Asians and stereotype threat" deserves its own section. Either it can be briefly mentioned in the introduction, or it can be included in a more general section about "Repercussions of stereotyping."

"Asian intelligence, IQ, and g"? What does that even mean? I assume that's a typo. This section either belongs under model minority because it's related to the stereotype of assumed Asian success, or it should be its own section. I don't think it belongs under "diversity," and it's messy form to have a subsection "Model Minority" under it when we already have a section titled "Model Minority" elsewhere. I think "Affirmative action" also more logically belongs under model minority rather than diversity, because it is related to the overrepresentation of Asians in Ivy Leagues etc. which has to do with the Model Minority stereotype and Asian IQ.

There's my reasoning above. I'm going to reorganize these sections in a more logical order. --Drenched 23:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Model Minority

How is being "Politically Inactive" a sign of being a "model minority" should all of the minorities get out of the way and let the white man take complete control of the country? and what does this mean for Sen. Daniel Akaka and Sen Daniel Inouye of Hawaii? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.173.233 (talk) 07:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Physical Apperance of Asians

I think we should make a heading more generally called "Physical appearance of Asians" or something, instead of the more specific "All Asians look the same" heading already existing. Then, we could address more general stereotypes about physical features ascribed to Asians (for example, this image published in Life Magazine during WWII found here: [1]). We could also discuss issues such as eyelid surgery & all that stuff under this heading as well. What do you all think? --Drenched 00:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Another stereotype

Another stereotype of Asians by non-Asians as I have noticed is, though rather a positive one, the accessibility of the latest gadgets (e.g. mobile phones, video games consoles, computers) before it made available in their resident countries, so would that be worth mentioning. Willirennen 18:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that idea is already encapsulated in the stereotype of Asians as being "Geeky" or computer nerds.OneViewHere 18:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's actually mention of the 'computer nerd' stereotype in the article. Even if there was, being a computer nerd isn't really much related to having the latest gadgets. For example, Chinese 'gangsters' frequently have the latest gadgets. Christopher Connor 19:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

? Um, please give me some examples of Chinese gangsters using the "latest gadgets". Also, I think the stereotype of being a computer nerd is entirely related to the idea of that type of person being technical and having cutting-edge gadgets.OneViewHere 08:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

But it dosen't have to be gangsters, neither does nerds, just mainly the Asian general public considering they are cheaper to buy them there and they are released before many countries like the US and Europe does. Willirennen 21:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Problematic intro paragraph sentence

Does anyone else find it ridiculous that we have a 14 line single sentence in the intro to this article? First of all, it's just a tremendous list. That's a problem. The purpose of an intro is just that -- to give an introduction to the topic, not to comprehensively list every single major and minor stereotype ever attributed to any Asian in life ever! If a random person happened to wander in on this article, do you really think that he/she'd read that entire monstrosity? And on top of that, he/she'd have a terrible time making sense of what our article was really trying to discuss. Second of all, it's a run on sentence. If we really did want to list all those things, at least we can break up the sentence into smaller parts or organize the characteristics into logical groupings. Third of all, the grammar of the sentence makes me want to cry. Some are adjectives, some are nouns, they all don't agree! I'm really trying hard to make the article as clean as possible, but I guess the cleanup tags were deserved...the grammar and organization in some spots of the article in its current state are really awful. So, I propose to fix it. Eliminate a lot of those characteristics listed (it's an encyclopedia, not an in depth book!). Fix the grammar. Break up the paragraph into coherent sentences that are a tad easier on the eyes. And also, is it really necessary to have 3 references per adjective? Our reference list and article length are both already quite long. --Drenched 05:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed

This stereotype is also affected by the physical appearance of some traits that Asians have: straight black hair and dark brown eyes. Because of the physical appearance of these two traits are virtually homologous, other traits are also similar prejudiced by Whites.

Why did you removed this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.175.43.242 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure where that specific sentence was, but I did remove a similar couple of sentences from the Physical Appearance section: "This stereotype is also affected by the physical appearance of some traits that Asians have: straight black hair and dark brown eyes (because of their relatively high levels of eumelanin compared to Whites). Because of the physical appearance of these two traits are virtually homologous, other traits are also similar prejudiced by Whites." I removed this chunk of text because 1) it was unsourced, 2) it is not a fact that all Asians have straight black hair and dark brown eyes, 3) it was poorly written and grammatically incorrect and 4) it wasn't essential to the article. --Drenched 18:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

there are popular explanations found on blogs and forums, but it might not be relevent sources. It might be too "obvious" to be found in academic research papers and books. There are also no "reliable" sources in the section of "Asian IQ and Intelligence" so why didn't you delete that section also?

"it is not a fact that all Asians have straight black hair and dark brown eyes". There are many definitions of the vague word "Asian." One definition is regional. One definition is social. According to the "social" definition, it is true that all Asians have black hair and dark brown eyes because race is primarily a social classification. 71.175.32.185 15:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

removing stuff

Some White supremacists revert and remove factual explanations of stuff from this article. It is arrogant to remove statements when they think they are untrue. For example, Drenched removed the soybean explanation and then re-added it. Also, White supremacists add unverifiable or opinions not from accurate sources.

I also do not see a motive to remove the paragraph of soybean products affects their mental and physical attribute. Why is it redundant? Many people do not know the repercussions of soybean products. So please leave the paragraph intact.

Using a list instead of the sentences saying stereotypes of Asians is more organized and less redundant. I think the reason why people do not use lists is because of the intuition that lists are too long and you have to scroll down the list a lot to read the rest of the sections. One other reason of preventing lists is because it prevents vandalism. I do not have a good reason that sentences in the paragraph will prevent the list from getting longer. The list lists some categories of some stereotypes.

A statement like this:

Some hold the impression that the short stature attributed to Asians is due to genetics, but environmental influences are very significant in the determination of height as well. Assuming if that the word "impression" means "opinion," then the "as well" statement in the end of this statement illustrates that there is a genetic attribute to stature amongst races. However, there are no reliable, anti-racist sources that embraces that the genetic phenotype for height varies among races. So in order to make statement correct and neutral, use a less ambiguous word than "impression" and remove the phrase "as well."

71.175.43.242 20:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

First, do you indiscriminately call everyone you disagree with a White supremacist? I don't appreciate false accusations, and personal attacks are unacceptable on Wikipedia. Second, there's nothing wrong with using judgment in removing unsourced statements that seem questionable to you. There is also nothing wrong with removing or rewording statements that are blatantly POV because Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and needs to be as neutral as possible.

About your soy paragraph... Please see Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Stay_on_topic. Please keep in mind that this article is about stereotypes. Your paragraph is excessive because that degree of detail about soy is not directly relevant to the topic. The goal of this article is not to educate people about the dangers of soy (which is even POV/soapbox-y in itself); if you are interested in writing about soy, feel free to edit soybean where that information would belong.

About an intro paragraph vs. open list of characteristics. 1) I can't find the Wikipedia citation at the moment, but in several of the pages that I've been editing, it's general consensus amongst editors that it's bad form to have long lists because it's tedious and counts against an article seeking "Featured" status. 2) I don't want this article to degenerate into this past version of the page African-American stereotypes found here: [2] (which was full of lists), that lead to a nomination for deletion. You can see their discussion page for more details.

I'm not sure what your point is in the last paragraph, because I am having trouble deciphering it. --Drenched 18:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with Drenched on this one. Why in the world would any statement about Soy products have a place in an article about Asian stereotypes? Soy products don't "cause" asian stereotypes, nor can it be proved that soy products affect physiology. Heck, not all Asians drink Soy! I'm Asian and I hate soy milk. I never drink the stuff. And even if I did, how much of it would I have to drink for it to have any kind of effect on me? Bottom line: It doesn't belong in this article. OneViewHere 09:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Visit height and race and the above user calls everyone a white supremacist for deleting unscholarly documents on height Also claims that asians have the tallest genetic potential in height and calls white supremacism again to all who disagree. Blames soy products, white rice and skin lighteners for short stature and refers sceptics to his previous statements regrding these environmental factors rather than scholarly material. Also blamed short stature on asian large brain size utilising too many calories which would have caused otherise extra height. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_height#Southern_Chinese

Removed about homogeneity

Also, this stereotype is based on the fact that Asians have little variance in some of their physical traits. Physical features, such as eye color, hair color and skin color generally appear the same in Asians. In effect of the homogeneous appearance of the traits, other traits of Asians, that are prejudiced Whites, are homogeneous as well.

Some scientists believe that these physical homogeneous traits might not signify that other traits are homologous. Skin, hair and eye color are largely contributed by the disparity of melanin levels in Whites. Thus, the reason that Whites have more variance in these physical features is due to their their greater variance in eumelanin levels. Scientists believed that the greater variance of eumelanin levels in Whites was resulted from an adaptation when humans moved at higher latitudes with lower sunlight levels. Therefore, some say that these homogeneous physical features of a race might not correlate how homologous other traits are, and argue that it is racist to detect genetic variance from these physical features.

Why is this removed? It is true that humans have to generate less melanin in climates with lower sunlight in order for the skin to synthesize adequate vitamin D. For more information, see White_people#Light_Skin More importantly, the view that Asians are homogeneous because of their physical features, is popular. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.175.43.242 (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm not necessarily the one who removed this section, but I agree with whoever did because it's more information than necessary. In the current edition, points about stereotypical traits of Asians and stereotypes of homogeneity are made quite clear. I don't think discussion of eumalin, appearances of White people, and reasons for those appearances, is essential to making the point that Asians are stereotyped as being homogenous. Also, please remember to sign your post with 4 of these: ~ for easier discussion. Thanks. --Drenched 07:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of the additions to this article seem to suffer from leaps of logic and a lack of understanding between what is scientifically derived facts and stereotypes. This article is about stereotypes, not the genetic traits of Asian people. Unless the provided sources actually link some researched fact to a stereotype, it really has no place in this article. For example:

1) Research shows that white skin is due to genetic change.

2) Asians are stereotyped as homogeneous.

Now how did we arrive at 2) from 1)? Unless sources specifically link 1) as the cause of 2), such information doesn't have to be in this article because it would be original research. In the proposed addition above, none of the three sources actually discuss that genetic variance causing white skin actually causes or affects a stereotype that Asians are physically homogeneuous. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Some sources of this section are here: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

The genetic diversity within populations in East Asia is high (but low among populations): [8] [9]

The genetic diversity of the Han population is high. There are significant differences in mitochondrial DNA between northern and southern Han populations. 71.175.43.242 20:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Do these sources specifically talk about how the amount of genetic diversity leads to or affects any stereotypes? There's a difference between scientific research and stereotypes. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The amount of genetic diversity with within an Asian ethnic group is very high. The difference of genetic variation between many Asian ethnic groups is low. [10] [11] Thus, there is no need to incorporate data about "how the amount of genetic diversity leads to or affects any stereotypes."71.175.43.242 21:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I can't disagree more. This article is about stereotypes. Without sources specifically discussing how these things relate to stereotypes, they don't have a place in this article - because these sources are not about stereotypes at all. They might belong in an article like Asian (people) though. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Do these sources specifically talk about how the amount of genetic diversity leads to or affects any stereotypes? There's a difference between scientific research and stereotypes. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The amount of genetic diversity with within an Asian ethnic group is very high. The difference of genetic variation between many Asian ethnic groups is low. [12] [13] Thus, there is no need to incorporate data about "how the amount of genetic diversity leads to or affects any stereotypes."71.175.43.242 21:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I can't disagree more. This article is about stereotypes. Without sources specifically discussing how these things relate to stereotypes, they don't have a place in this article - because these sources are not about stereotypes at all. They might belong in an article like Asian (people) though. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussing how White change in skin color is not original research. The skin color information is extraneous information.

The point of adding the stereotype that Asian homogeneity is related to Asian appearance is that the stereotype is common. It is based on the fact that Asians all look very similar, thus leads to a prejudice that all other traits are as homogeneous are well. This stereotype is found on blogs and forums, but these are not "reliable" sources. The reason that this stereotype may not be in research papers or books is because the explanation for this stereotype may be too "obvious" to be published.

If you believe this stereotype of the appearance of Asian homogeneity should be removed for your reasons, then the section about "Asian IQ and intelligence" should be removed as well because it also has your reasons that fit in your criteria for deletion. There is also no academic research papers or books discussing that Asians have homogeneous IQ and intelligence (but found on blogs, forums and personal websites). So why you delete the "skin color and homogeneity" section but didn't delete the "Asian IQ and intelligence" section? 71.175.32.185 15:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Visit height and race. User 71.175.43.242 calls everyone a white supremacist for deleting unscholarly documents claiming the Beijinese are 176cm on average. Also claims that asians have the tallest genetic potential in height and calls white supremacism again to all who disagree. Blames soy products, white rice and skin lighteners for short stature and refers sceptics to his previous statements regrding these environmental factors rather than scholarly material. Also gp further and blames short stature on asian large brain size utilising too many calories which would have caused otherise extra height. Here's my reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_height#Southern_Chinese Here's my reference.

Remove # 8.4 Stereotype associated with sexual slavery

I suggest that this section has to removed. These are the following reasons.

1. The sources about this section does not say that it is based on Asian-Stereotypes.
2. She is Filipino, and possibly is not Southeast Asian, and probably Hispanic.
3. Race is primarily a social classification. Race classifies people mainly based on their physical appearance, and little to no biological differences. However, some people will not know she is "Asian" because she does not look like a "stereotypical Asian".
4. This is just one event, and not all Asians are sexual slaves.
5. This does not reflect on all Asians

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.175.43.242 (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Although I disagree with most of your reasons, I wouldn't mind the removal of this section or its incorporation into a different section under Female stereotypes (perhaps "Hypersexuality"). The article is already quite long, and I don't think that one case requires an entire subsection. The stereotypes associated with the Vivian Solon case are related to the hypersexuality or China Doll stereotypes, where it can easily be mentioned as an example. --Drenched 06:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

However, the sources does not mention that it is related to sexual stereotypes of Asians.

71.175.43.242 19:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed Han homogeneity

Removal of this statement:

The homogeneity is also related to the fact that the Han ethnic group embraces 92% of the Chinese population. [14] However, high genetic variation is found within the Han population.

Your reasons for removal are:

1. stereotype explained already
2. info not directly relevant to stereotyping
3. and only specific to Chinese rather than all Asians

The reasons for the removal of those statements appear to be insignificant.

Three small reasons, no matter how many, ain't nothin' compared to a major reason. Y'all are blatantly addin' up the small reasons to equal a big reason. It ain't gonna work. Some controversal topics has many small reasons. This is but they're not removed. Why? 'Cause you use math to add 'em up to equal a number. But you can't use no math for this. They are a list of reasons, not the values to add up in a summation operator. I repeat, "three small reasons ain't no better than a big explanation." Quality, not quantity, as y'all heard a thousand times.

Just 'cause many of my other edits are removed, it ain't mean this edit should be removed too.

Your first reason is not accurate because it is not explained already. The explanation that I wrote is not related to the outgroup homogeneity bias. It is based on some facts that some people conclude:

1. By the definition of an ethnic group, there is very high genetic similarity. Therefore, very little genetic variation is found within every ethnic group.
2. There is an ethnic group that consists 92% of the Chinese population.
3. Therefore, that 92% of the population is genetically homogeneous.

The reason that this is added is because the Han ethnic group is an exception that people do not understand (found on many Websites, Web forums, blogs, etc.).

The third reason is the most inaccurate reason. Your view is that it is specific to "Chinese" rather than to all "Asians." Your view is correct to some point to perserve a neutral point of view. However, a major portion of the Asian population is composed of the Han ethnic group. This is too big to get left out. It is too big because it largely contributes to the average IQ of Asians. Without the Han ethnic group, the average IQ of Asians will probably be much lower (because of the Cambodians, etc.). Accordingly, the Han population also contributes to the standard deviation of Asians. So why did the this statement got deleten but the IQ statistics in the "Asian IQ and intelligence" sections didn't?71.175.32.185 15:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

the link is useful and everything, but the info should move to Han People instead. --MeowKun | Meowi Talk 02:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Root of worker stereotype

The article describes the stereotype of Asians being hard workers without covering that this generalization has its roots in reality. For instance, Japan currently has a phenomenon, Karōshi, in which seemingly well workers in the economy will literally die from overwork, usually due to stress-based heart attacks or strokes. I am part Japanese and have seen much to corroborate the existence of an extreme Japanese work ethic (perhaps extreme by Western standards), one that may have wider roots than a single country.
The bearing this has on this article is that we may want to cover the stereotypes the Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, and countless other groups create for their own. A stereotype has to come from somewhere to exist. I'm interested in that basis, and have a strong gut feeling that the "hard worker" stereotype came from what may be simply normal in another country.
Is this complicated? Yes. It is complicated as hell. That's why it needs covering.
...Right. I've talked more than enough about this, so I may as well make an edit based on this. I'm creating a stub and linking to it somewhere on this page. I just needed to think about what to do first. Kennard2 08:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Just to be clear, I don't advocate stereotypes as they tend to get in the way of the bigger picture. However, I am interested in how they came to be--how these molehills became mountains, so to speak.
P.P.S. I might have gone more or less off topic here, but the main point--that a stereotype has roots--still stands.

Southeast Asians not on this page

This page seems to focus only on East Asians. Also SE Asians, other than Vietnamese Americans, have very few cultural bonds to East Asia. Southeast Asia (once again sans Vietnam) is product of more South Asian influence than Chinese influence. Southeast Asian steretypes should have its own page Thegreyanomaly 02:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Cultural does not matter. This page is about stereotypes, not cultural differences. People that believe in these stereotypes are ignorant, as they only judge Asians by appearance, not culture; and because Southeast Asians and East Asians have similar appearances (but not every Southeast Asian). East Asians are blamed for the Southeast Asian gangs. 71.175.32.20 19:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

East Asians are blamed for South Asian gangs? Hmm. Did I miss that story on Anderson Cooper 360? Computer1200 11:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the general point, but the general point got sunk by that gangs comment. I'm not commenting on gangs, but I also agree that East and Southeast Asian stereotypes belong on the same page because stereotypes are appearance-based. The people stereotyping often can't tell the difference between East and Southeast Asians anyway, so both groups (although each have their own specific stereotypes too) suffer from the same general Asian stereotypes, which is what this page is about. --Drenched 05:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. While there is some overlap (just as there is some overlap with South Asians) it's not true that all stereotypes of East Asians are applied to South East Asians as well by those who have these stereotypes IMHO. Even some of the more racist types can tell the difference between a Filipinos, Malay or Indonesian & a 'typical' East-Asian. It's probably more accurate to say that South East Asians don't perhaps tend to get much attention from a lot of the 'Western' world so they aren't stereotyped as much but they do get some attention in Australia and New Zealand. IMHO this page should be split again to East Asian and South East Asian. Of course the more extreme types and general stereotypes don't tend to differentiate between South-East Asians and East Asians, but then again they don't tend to differentiate between South Asians and East Asians either... But this should be covered in a single article which is not this article. Nil Einne 23:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Southeast Asians such as Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian, and Thai are on a seperate branch. East Asians to South Asians are paradoxically more genetically similar than East Asians to these Southeast Asians.

Backing up what the guy above just said http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2001_v68_p432.pdf Thegreyanomaly 21:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Northeast Asians are more genetically similar to Indians and Caucasians than Thai and many Chinese minorities, even though Northeast Asians and Thai people look similar. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/85/16/6002.pdf

Stereotypes of East Asians won't work because it does not include the indigenous minorities of East Asia. Southeast Asians have to go on a seperate but many Southeast Asians look like East Asians.

---

Most of Southeast Asia has greater South Asian influence for most of history (with the exception of Vietnam). Many of the same architecture of the Chola Empire for example is found all over SE Asia. However I agree that East Asian stereotypes are probably more prevalent amount SE Asians because yes, many (if not most) SE Asians look East Asian (many East Asians have migrated there during the colonial era).

However if we have one article for East and SE Asian, I don't see why South Asians have their own page separate to West Asians. Even though South Asia is culturally closer to SE Asia for example (which they influenced) most South Asians are caucasoid and look more like Middle Easterners than East or SE Asians. Zachorious 23:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Stereotypes of Asians and car ownership

Another one to consider is, as I have found in the tuner cars and its has been a common stereotype, this current edit (as of 17 June 2007) stereotypes young Asian men for driving modified sport compact cars, which tends to be dubbed as "rice rocket" (commonly for motorcycles) or "rice burner". The latter article describes it in detail. Willirennen 21:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Creativity and Innovation...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypes_of_East_Asians#Lack_of_creativity_and_innovation

... do we need statements like Asians stole from the whites or that they copied from the whites?

The language is definitely very POV and I would support removing or at least qualifying it. It's one thing if a statement like that is put in quotation marks as stating the position of a specific group. But it's not okay to state that as it is. --Drenched 05:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Name Change

I think this article should be changed to stereotypes of East Asians. East Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans etc.) are of a different genetic family than the mass majority of South East Asians. The only South East Asian groups that these stereotypes would consistantly apply to, would be Vietnamese, some Thais and the other indochinese countries. But the majority of South East Asia are the brown/tan/olive skin Austronesians from The Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia. For the average Austronesian the only stereotype in the article that they could relate with would be the height factor.

would anyone agree?

i also get the feeling by looking at the previously ignored declarations that South East Asians cannot relate to this article being they are of a totally different genetic family and physical appearance than that of East Asians, that East Asians are trying to "bring us down" with them. Make no mistake we have our own stereotypes but not the ones that East Asians get.

If this request is ignored and no viable argument is made on why South East Asians should be included in this article, then i'll take it straight to one of the admins and make the proposal to them.

--Jandela 12:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, East Asians are genetically much more different to Southeast Asians than South Asians.

But this page is based on the appearance, so even though Southeast Asians look "similar" to East Asians but genetically distinct, they have to be included.

Because Filipinos and other Maritime Southeast Asian does not "look" east asian, we should change the article.

This article shoud be renamed to Stereotypes of East Asians and Mainland Southeast Asians. We have to create another article Stereotypes of Austronesians or Stereotypes of Maritime Southeast Asians for Indonesians and other Maritime Southeast Asians.

Horrible Article

This is one the worst articles ever. It uses forums and non mainstream clearly racist source as proof of stereotypes existing. It rants on about anti asian racism and eventually does away with dealing with actual stereotypes of asians. Even worst three articles have been created that further the problems. It needs a complete rewrite.YVNP 05:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is in constant need of policing because it is plagued by WikiWarriors who edit anonymously with their IPs or newly registered accounts. Basically, an effort to actually make this a good article is a never-ending job and will be guaranteed to sink a great portion of your time. This is why good-faith editors have finally decided to stay away. If you decide to take it upon yourself to improve it though, I can certainly lend my support. But I can't make any promises as to how much time I am willing to spend on this article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is better now

...no, the article isn't better now, it's still horrible. YVNP, this article wasn't always this horrible. If you want to see a much better incarnation of the article before a certain (now banned, but unfortunately now masquerading under a different IP address) WikiWarrior came along, here it is as of January 14 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stereotypes_of_East_and_Southeast_Asians&oldid=100731621 It isn't perfect, but at least it's not this mess. Please help contribute and fix the article! --Drenched 04:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The linked article is a bit better than this one. Less ranting and better organized. Grifter tm 09:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This article reads more like a high school essay than an encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sd42790 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

What about autism

is there a stereotype among asians that Asians are autistic?

I have never heard of that. Arbiteroftruth 00:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is horrid

I think we need to completely rewrite it. There are links all over the place, crap references, and general unwikiness.--76.23.95.54 22:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Some of the statements here are almost funny if it wasn't so pathetic. It's like one big rant on a blog than an article. There are some salvageable ideas on this article, though. Maybe we should lock it up as well to prevent vandalism. To quote:

Even though Richard Feynman and Francis Crick have relatively low IQs, Asians are stereotyped lack creativity to innovate like these scientists.

Some suggest that Asians are robots programmed by parents to excel in math, science and engineering. [61]

Combined with the stereotype of homogeneity of Asians; the maxim appeared on several white Supremacist websites: "whites are the best civilization builders, Asians are the best civilization maintainers."[40] [41] [42][43][44]

The last one made me laugh. Grifter tm 09:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article is a complete mess right now. An easier alternative to rewriting I think would to be to revert the article to an earlier incarnation, for example, this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stereotypes_of_East_and_Southeast_Asians&oldid=100731621 The article wasn't always this terrible. --Drenched 18:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I feel that we should merge back the pages that have been split off of this article, including: Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians (history), Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians (media portrayal), and Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians (repercussions). Yes, this article is very long, but I feel that 4 articles related to general stereotypes of East/Southeast Asians is excessive, and this main page as a stand alone article makes very little sense without the rest of the content. Furthermore, the organization of what sections went to each subpage does not make a whole lot of sense, and now because of that there's all this cross-linking amongst these articles which is unnecessary and very messy. I think we can deal with the length later after we see what content we have to work with in 1 place. --Drenched 20:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Clear all this up!!

I'm rather new with Wikipedia, but may I suggest somebody clean all this up? Either GET RID of these stereotype-articles completely, or change them so they are well-written, non-offensive, and then LOCK the page. I'll try to write the weaker parts better, if that's alright? As aforementioned, I'm new....sorry if I did anything wrong.

69.141.165.175 21:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Wikiwikiwakoo

Thank you for your interest in this article. No, I do NOT think that this article should be deleted! Yes, I agree that this article should be made non-offensive and well-written, so please do contribute. No, you didn't do anything wrong, but I would suggest registering and getting a username with Wikipedia, and in the future adding your comments on talk pages to the bottom of the page with the little "+" tab next to "edit this page". Welcome! --Drenched 04:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

May I also add? I was reading through it again....in the list of the "stereotypes", I read that they can be arrogant and smug, and also submissive. I'm still reading the intro, but there's already contradiction...?

69.141.165.175 21:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Wikiwikiwakoo

I would really love to help clean this if I knew that it wasn't going to become an edit war. Can we semi-lock this up? Grifter tm 05:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think (or at least I hope) that there'll be an edit war. The terrible state of the article is primarily the work of one editor who got banned recently. I also don't think it's necessary to lock the page unless something happens later to warrant such an action. I made suggestions to improve the article at the bottom of this talk page. --Drenched 04:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of all evidence of Asian traits

As per my comments in the "Racism in Article" below, I am going to remove all sections which discuss the actual asian traits themselves, rather than the perceptions or stereotypes of asians. This is a real fault of the article. If they want and have the guts to do so, people can make a page on actual asian attributes, however they will no longer be able to cowardly guise their racist sentiment in this article. 24.82.143.103 07:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed much of the article containing explanations or justifications such as the effect of "skin whiteners" on IQ, etc. 24.82.143.103 07:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Racism in Article

This page is an embarassment, littered with racist sentiment that is introduced as perceptions, but then elaborated on and inflated with facts that support the racist ideas themselves, rather than the perceptions as it logically should, becoming a straight forward list of racist sentiment against Asians. I'll list a few examples:

The stereotype of Asian are emasculine is related to the appearance of Asians. Asians are typically perceived as short and having less body hair than whites. Therefore, they are prejudiced as having less androgens and testosterone than whites. [12] However, some studies suggest that Asians have less hair is due to less sensitive hair follicles, not the amount of testosterone. [13] [14] This is also true between humans and apes. Studies shown while humans have more androgens than apes, humans have less hair. [15] Therefore, the amount of hair is not necessary related to the amount of androgens, androgen receptor sensitivity. [13] [14]

Some studies conclude that Asian men have slightly less testosterone levels than whites. On average studies found that Asian men have 10% less testosterone than whites, blacks have 17% more. [16] This may not be caused by genetics, but environmental differences such as diet. Studies show that Western diets significantly promote higher testosterone levels as compared to Asian diets. [17]

I know that there is an emasculine stereotype, however discussion on the accuracy of the stereotype is inappropriate, whether it is true or not. This is not a list of asian attributes, rather it is listing perceptions of asian attributes.

Many Asians remain lactose intolerant. [45] Due to the imbalance of the male-female populations in some Asian nations, not everyone can marry each other. This imbalance increases selection pressure, which leads females to select the taller, lactose persistent males. The lactose intolerant population will become smaller over time. Phenotypic traits that are associated or linked with the phenotypic lactose intolerance trait, will thus become less prevalent and may even disappear over time. Due to the wide increase of dairy products in Asian nations, this process is minimizing the genetic diversity of the Asian race. [46] [47] [48] [49]

What the hell is the above doing in the stereotypes :Stereotype of homogenity: section? As a grad student in genetics, I challenge anyone to show that the evidence in this single paper demonstrates Asians are losing genetic diversity, which is what this section is suggesting.

The stereotypical image of East Asian and Southeast Asian people's physical appearance generally includes having straight black hair, small or slanted eyelids with an epicanthal fold, brown eyes, yellow-tinged skin, and small stature, amongst other traits.

The height differences, and having "black hair", "small eyelids", etc are not stereotypes, they are statistical facts. By putting in a section on real physical attributes alongside racist sentiment and "Lack of creativity and innovation" etc., it is being suggested that racist constructs are equivalent to fact.

Some suggest that Asians are robots programmed by parents to excel in math, science and engineering. [161]

Some suggest that Asians are very good at playing some musical instruments, but cannot compose (see Lack of creativity and innovation).

This is not a list of every little prejudiced idea or exhaustive permutation thereof, that has been dreamed up against Asians, but a list of major perceptions. Do not list everything that comes to mind. Also, "Some suggest" is not nearly descriptive enough and source "161" is not even cited

The large sections of the article on intelligence which suggest some chemicals such as skin whiteners, cause major deficits in intelligence or are responsible for other negative asian traits, or that lactose is causing the asian gene pool to homogenize (!!as a result of their warped sex ratios because of their culture!!), remind me of the racist sentiment in 1930 America that Japanese pilots would be weak adversaries, as their diet of rice would leave them short sited to the point of blindness. This was proved very wrong.

I find it interesting that, although there probably are serious stereotypes against the jewish people, I can't seem to find a page apart from jewish princess, that describes such an exhaustive list of traits against jews as there are here against asians. There is, however, an antisemitism page. 24.82.143.103 07:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I generally support your proposed edits. There used to be a Stereotypes of Jews page, because I split a whole bunch of ethnic stereotypes sections from a main stereotypes page off into their own articles, but it got taken the wrong way and was deleted. (The stereotypes of whites page is also currently nominated for deletion and probably will be, and the stereotypes of blacks and Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims page have also gone through nominations for deletion but survived). Please do contribute to help improve this page! --Drenched 05:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are there so many sterotypes about asians?

Theres so much Stereotypes about asians even from the very smallest to the biggest. If you look at the other Stereotypes of whites/blacks/hispanics theres like 13 articles and the asians one has like 40.Its just fact that most asians don't really give a crap about what racist and what they think of them. All they care about is Family/Friends and money. Thats why theres no asians hate groups out there while theres a ton of white/black/hispanic hate groups. Shame how wikipedia contain so many racist waiting to smear asian. If you read the asian Stereotypes articles most of them are negatives in comparison with the other Stereotypes aritcles where it turns avoids negatives. For example in the white and black sterotypes there is absolutely no mentioning of the difference of male and female.

First, please sign your entries with 4 of these "~". Second, you're not making a whole lot of sense and sound like you're stereotyping yourself. Third, just because the other stereotypes pages don't have as much content, it doesn't mean that stereotypes don't exist. --Drenched 04:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No Asian hate groups? Ever heard of ModelMinority.com? That site is full of noted Asian supremacists and anti-white, anti-Jewish hate groups. While Asian hate groups are much smaller in number, they do exist.

You yourself sound like an Asian supremacist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.78.212 (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization of the article

Okay, I merged back the 3 split off articles so all the content is here. However, it's a huge mess and needs a LOT of cutting and rearranging.

A few points:

• There needs to be a section for the "Dragon Lady" stereotype. It's age old and huge. I don't know who removed it, but they shouldn't have.
• The "Stereotypes of intelligence" section is strange. It's a lot of article space devoted to this supposed "lack of creativity" stereotype, and I vaguely see where they're coming from, but I don't think it's a major stereotype and haven't really heard about it. And the logic in this section doesn't make a lot of sense, for example: "Many argue against the stereotype that Asians are not creative by citing the fact that the Chinese invented paper, the compass, gunpowder, printing, and others." There's a lot of arguments about the language and all this other really detailed stuff to disprove an obscure illogical argument about this not so major stereotype. It's also very jargon-filled and not reader friendly, and having 2 subsections on it is definitely excessive. I'd really like to delete this section, or at least shorten it or incorporate it elsewhere.
• The "History" section is awkward. There's historical stuff cited all over the article, and this paragraph is an awkward medium length of stuff you'd find out in other places in the article. I think we should either get rid of it and just summarize the general idea in the intro or expand it to make it actually say something. Given the article length I'd rather cut at this point, though.
• The parts about "Fu Manchu" and "Charlie Chan" are slightly awkward too. I think they're really important to have in this article, but I'm not sure quite where to put them. Maybe further down in the article. Maybe under the history section if we end up instead expand it?
• "Stereotypes of athletics" is also an awkward section. First, I think it should be renamed to something like "lack of athleticism." Secondly, I don't think it belongs under physical attributes. There's also one sentence about the martial arts stereotype in there, and since the martial artist stereotype is pretty big, I think it belongs in a separate section...not under physical attributes. This section also has a lot of examples & arguing/counterarguing. It can be condensed.
• "Stereotypes of abilities" is a mess. The format is list-like and really random. The title doesn't say anything. I think that all the content here could easily be incorporated into "model minority". But I really think a good portion of this content is nonsensical and quite questionable.
• "Stereotype of leadership" could also probably be incorporated into "model minority" because it's related to the "glass ceiling" idea, and excelling without controlling or gaining too much power is all part of the model minority stereotype. But I could see it as a stand-alone section as well. The title isn't very good though...maybe "Lack of leadership skills" or something would be more descriptive of the contents.
• I created the "Asian roles in the media" section just as an umbrella to put the misc other sections "relegation to supporting roles" and "as comic relief due to language barrier". This section is also tricky because a lot of the content in the rest of the page could go here with such a broad title. I'm not really sure what to do with this section...it's okay, but could be awkward.

Those are my thoughts. Does anyone have any ideas/objections/comments? --Drenched 04:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit better since most of the stupid stuff is gone. Do we really need to add lines from Rush Hour 2, though? Grifter tm 02:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I don't think we do. I don't think there's anything wrong with giving examples of stereotypes using quotes from movies/books/pop culture. (In fact, authors who wrote about stereotypes routinely use such quotes to illustrate their points...including the Rush Hour 2 quote). Due to the nature of stereotyping, drawing examples from the media & pop culture is an inevitable necessity...after all it is through media & pop culture that these stereotypes are perpetuated. However, I also don't think that any one of the examples are in themselves absolutely necessary. That particular quote was sort of cumbersome anyhow. --Drenched 06:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I took out about half the opening text since it just summarizes most of the stuff written below and since it seems to be very susceptible to vandalism. I also need to ask if the "Stereotype of mentally unstable behavior and violence" section is verifiable by someone who actually lives in the US AND is not part of a white supremacist organization (or any racial supremacist organization, for that matter). It probably need not be someone who's written anything significant or published, but just a normal person/people who can attest to this (if a non-biased university sponsored survey exists that would be great, though a tad unlikely). If it isn't, we need to take it down for POV issues (and the fact that it isn't a stereotype recognized by anyone else outside of white supremacist organizations). Grifter tm 04:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! The intro looks a lot neater this way. I live in the US and am not a White supremacist, and I do not believe "mentally unstable behavior and violence" is really a major stereotype of Asians. I was aware of the incidents listed involving killings by Asians, but I don't feel that they have been internalized as Asian stereotypes. (I mean, people don't go around in America freaked out that they will get shot by a crazy Asian person at any second). I would support the removal of that section, or the placement of a POV tag until/unless someone finds sources for it. The only part of that section that I do believe is a valid stereotype is that of the hysterical suicidal Asian woman, but that can go under the gendered stereotypes section. (i.e. Madame Butterfly, Miss Saigon, the self-erasing self-sacrificing Asian woman...there's a lot of literature out there about that, but I don't have time to write up a section right now). Sorry for being long-winded. Yes, I support your proposed edits. --Drenched 05:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We could probably add the rate of female suicides later on the female stereotype section, but it shouldn't be on its own. Grifter tm 05:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Pathetic article

Somebody with waaaay too much time on their hands is venting his insecurities (100% certain it is male) on this issue.

The article is hypocritical in the first sentence. There are other societies outside Asia which are NOT "Western Societies". And not every Asian living in a Western Society is an Asian-American. Kransky 10:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh...right. That's why entire classes of students at major universities waste their time studying these "insecurities." (And what does gender even have to do with this?) Yes, there are stereotypes of Asians outside of "Western Societies", but this page isn't about them because as you can see, there's plenty to write already about the subject of Westerner's stereotypes of Asians. And obviously not all Asians in Western society are Asian-American...no one is claiming otherwise. There used to be a globalize tag on this article, and rightly so. There are a few mentions of Asian-Canadians and Asian-Australians, but the content is America-centric, because I'm American, and I write about what I know. If you are knowledgeable Asians in other countries, then please contribute about them. --Drenched 20:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this remark even necessary?

Including schools ranked in the Top 50, the number increases to around 44% of Asian American college graduates having graduated from a Tier 1 university. In contrast, barely 1 in 4 blacks have attended, let alone graduated from any college. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.240.63 (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't terribly mind the existence of that passage, but no, I don't think it is indispensible either (or very strictly relevant, although it is related). --Drenched 06:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This remark (comparing the academic achievements of Asian Americans versus those of Blacks) is very much relevant, because chances are that you are highly likely to find an Asian American (particularly in positions of power or who have good jobs) who has graduted from an elite university. In contrast, most blacks don't even HAVE a college education, let alone one from an elite university. And further, the vast majority of Blacks who graduated from college have graduated from an HBCU (Historically black college and university) or crappy third and fourth tier universities.

It may sound harsh, but the reality is that for an Asian to get far in America, he has to attend an elite university. Whereas for everybody else, just going to and graduating from ANY college period (even fourth tier universities) is a HUGE accomplishment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.187.219 (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Very strange title

Why is this article titled "Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians", when it seems to be exclusively focusing on American stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians? If, this article is not trying to be so exclusive, about American English stereotyping of East and Southeast Asians, then why aren't European, Australasian etc stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians examined in this article, at all? I have to say most, if not all, of these appalling stereotypes, listed, are very familiar to me, and I am someone who has never even been to America.

There's an American focus because contributers like me know about this issue primarily from an American standpoint. Hence the globalize tag encouraging people to contribute about countries other than just America. There are a few mentions of Australia and Canada, but not much else. These western countries are all under the umbrella of this one article precisely because they hold a lot of the same stereotypes of Asians in common...which may be why these stereotypes are familiar to you, wherever you are from. If you are knowledgeable about Asian stereotypes in other Western societies, please feel free to contribute! --Drenched 05:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Major Clean-up

Following a request by JzG on AN/I, I cleaned up a great deal of speculation and unsourced material here. I removed some sections outright, and chunks of other sectiosn which mostly came off as just lists of stereotypes, without any supporting examples or citation, and a bunch of others where reactions were listed but uncited, which is OR, and so on, and on. I've aked JzG t oreview my clean up. Hopefully this will allow this article to be revuilt into a stronger, more sourced article. ThuranX 04:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you did a ton of work! Thanks for cleaning up the article & shortening it significantly! A couple things I think should have been left in, but over all I'm glad you cut it down. Just wondering, what is AN/I? Thanks again. --Drenched 03:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and that would be the Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents. I reverted your change. It took a good split in the stereotypes, overly aggresive women cotnrasted against overly servile, and turned it into a greater number of sectiosn with less citation; as her quote spoke to multiple forms of the servile stereotype, i've returned it. If anything, the prior shouldn't so heavily emphasize the same ideas as 'agreessive' next to the 'dragon lady', and leave that first for aggro, the second for submissive. ThuranX 04:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks better, but I think the cultural references could be moved into the 21st century, beyond Fu Manchu and Charlie Chan. Now most of the Asians on TV, especially males, are either doctors or kung-fu masters, making a high model minority standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.191.203 (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits of Jan 2008

Reverted last edit. Citing current events as the cause for the model minority image of Asian Americans is, at best, original research. At worst, it's a hasty generalization by a layman.Grifter tm (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Grifter. I think the string of incidents in 2007 involving Asian Americans engaging in criminal behavior (from Seung hui Cho to Norman Hsu) definitely has damaged the model minority image. Several articles from Asian Americans writers themselves acknowledged that these incidents unfortunately do have repercussions on the model minority image. Whether this damage to the model minority image will last in the long run has yet to be seen, but the image of Asian Americans as the model minority definitely took a hit.

Of course, many Asians don't agree with me and this is actually one stereotype that Asians continue to work hard to try to maintain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.186.234 (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Precisely my point. The entry to the article is mainly founded on your opinion that the Model Minority Image took a hit. Granted that there are several news articles documenting this, I still say that it's still within the lines of original research. Perhaps, a a re-write, or at the very least, current events tag is in order.

By the way, I maybe an Asian (Southeast Asian to be specific), but I don't really mind all of the stereotypes presented on this article. Grifter tm (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a wikipedia article, not an Asian supremacist site. The point of these wikipedia articles is to present a BALANCED view of Asian stereotypes. That includes both the good and the bad. I know that being Asian and all, most Asians only want Americans to see the "positive" side of Asians (the studious model minority types). You don't seem to mind the model minority stereotype because it makes Asians look good. Understandable, it's a white man's society and for Asians to be "accepted" in society, they have to be part of the model minority. I also appreciate that being an Asian and trying to survive in a white man's society, you have a vested interest in perpetuating the image of Asians as the model minority. A lot of Black people I know are envious of Asians and WISH that Blacks would have the model minority label instead of being stereotyped as uneducated criminals and thugs.

But my point is that many articles--from Asians nonetheless--acknowledge that like it or not, the Asian model minority image has been damaged by a spate of incidents in 2007. Now many Asians out there are hoping that 2007 was a fluke and that Asians will rightfully regain the model minority status. I dunno. But for now, there are articles documenting that the recent scandals in 2007 (Cho's Virginia Tech massacre, the Norman Hsu scandal) do not quite jibe with the image of Asians as the model minority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.186.234 (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That's YOUR opinon. Find reliable sources before adding that to the article. ThuranX (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I HAVE found reliable sources. What's up with all this censorship? Are all these Asians worried about a wikipedia article making them look bad because it speaks to the truth that the model minority stereotype may not jibe with the reality that Asians have been involved in less than savory activities lately? Is the model minority stereotype something to be proud of to the point that we are worried about it being damaged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.186.234 (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Racist attacks on other editors are unwelcome. It's quite simple. Read WP:SYNTH. Your attempts to tie every incidence of Asain-american malfeasance to disruption of the stereotype constitutes original research, and requires citations for each incident's effect on the stereotype. ThuranX (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's hilarious that you accuse me of being a racist. Whenever Asians don't like to hear criticism from others, they resort to using the race card, or accuse critics of being racist. This is what's wrong with the model minority stereotype. Asians buy into that stereotype so much that they think they are completely immune from criticism.

That's also the point of the articles I cited. Because of the recent spate of incidents involving Asian Americans engaging in criminal/unethical behavior, Asians are more preoccupied with worrying about how much that image of Seung-Hui Cho will damage the Asian American model minority image rather than actually try to solve the root of the problem. Asians are more interested in trying to maintain that model minority image instead of actually helping others out who might need help. 70.18.186.234 (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

ALL of the above contentions are JUST your opinion, including your assumption that i'm resisting because i'm asian and don't like to hear criticism, instead of me being Mizrahi and opposing on a factual basis, or Lemba and resisting on a factual basis, or asian and resisting on a factual basis. I can't emphasize this any more, and I won't. This is the last time. I object because you lack citations connecting those events to changes in the stereotype. You also lack citation for the preservation of the stereotype as a major concern of modern asian-americans. Next time you revert that stuff into the article, I will make use of other remedies on Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why you think that my contentions are just purely my opinion. Take a look at one of the articles I cited:

http://asianweek.com/2008/01/01/sadly-cho-is-most-newsworthy-apa-in-2007 "Cho? We file him away under “A” for “aberration” and go back to our model minority discussions."

Asians have done little to fight the stereotype of the model minority. In fact, many Asians often use the whole model minority image to try and not confront any shortcomings Asians as a group have. They think, we're Asian, Asians are the model minority, we don't have any problems. But the article does point out how the model minority image has took a hit recently and that no matter how much Asians want to think they are the model minority, they are not as perfect as their model minority image proclaims it to be.

Further, as I stated in my earlier edit summary, i have reviewed the citations added, and found that none actually support the ideas posed in the paragraph added. One is a op-ed, with no mention of stereotypes, model minority, or any such. the other two mention it in passing, and then go on to try to wake up the APA to he fac that people who need help also exist in their community, and they shouldn;'t fall prey to their own stereotype. that doesn't realyl support the 'the stereotype is tarnished/proved wrong' idea the para was built on. ThuranX (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

And perhaps that's YOUR opinion that the citations added do not support the paragraphs. The articles I have cited perfectly explain that the model minority veil of Asians have been damaged due to these unfortunate tragedies. I know Asians would rather be seen as the model minority, but trust me, that stereotype isn't as glamorous as Asians may think.

Here's one of the articles I cited: http://www.asianreporter.com/stories/polo/2007/p-18-07.htm "But our casualties, the casualties of our rush to leafy suburbs, to ivied universities,Italic text to Ann Taylor and Brooks Brothers, need care too. Real care. Mental illness is like physical disease. TB can be treated, psychoses can be treated. We can call him a tormented soul or call it a biochemical imbalance, but these family members need help. Attention, diagnosis, treatment. APA Heritage Month 2007 is like no other. We will never look the same. We have lost our carefully manicured model minority image.Italic text Maybe being truer to ourselves, being a lot truer to our emotionally tormented brothers and cousins, our crazy uncles, can redeem a little of what deep suffering our image-managing parents and their suddenly mad young men have caused America. Our America.

Here is the second article I cited: http://www.nola.com/education/t-p/index.ssf?/base/news-3/1176879681205230.xml&coll=1&thispage=2. "For decades the overriding stereotype of Asian-Americans, and especially Asian-American students, has been that of the model minority: outstanding scholars, hard-working, respectful and focused. Violence is not part of the image. Italic text

But it was Chinese physics student Gang Lu who shot five people to death and wounded another in a shooting at the University of Iowa in 1991. And it was Taiwan-born Wayne Lo, who came to the United States as an adolescent, who in 1992 went on a rampage at Simon's Rock College of Bard in Great Barrington, Mass., killing a professor and a student and wounding four others.

These are very rare cases, of course. But Im, who is working with at-risk Asian youths under a U.S. Labor Department grant, said that beneath the model-minority image simmers a rising tide of delinquency and violence that American policymakers have failed to come to grips with.

"The model-minority stereotype hurts us tremendously in terms of getting resourcesItalic text," Im said.

I think I have validly cited the added paragraph. I am not sure why you are taking hostile actions against me. I have in good faith added a paragraph about the repurcussions of the model minority stereotype and the recent incidents tarnishing the model minority stereotype. I have also validly cited the paragraph as well. 70.18.186.234 (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Look. YOU continue to make bigoted statements. YOu continue to rely upon Op-Ed pieces to support YOUR opinion. There's no scholarly research among your citations. in the citations you DO have, the authors make no scholarly claims. It's two other peoples' opinions which match your bigotry. Your bigoted comments here, including, but not limited to your accusations that anyone opposing you is Asian, show your POV intent here. There's nothing in your citations which can be construed as WP:RS for ths purposes you're seeking to pursue. Please read up on our policies. Thank you. Should you revert again, I will take this to the proper places. ThuranX (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, YOU continue to make ad hominem attacks on me and accuse me of being a bigot and a racist. You continue to viciously attack me with your accusations of me being a racist and the assumption that I am trying to make Asians look bad. This is not about protecting Asians' cherished model minority stereotype; my contributions present a unique insight into how the recent spate of events involving Asian American criminals could potentially (or already have) dent the model minority stereotype. I back up my "claims" with opinion pieces. May I remind you that in wikipedia, you are ALLOWED to cite opinions as long as they are VERIFIABLE (not necessarily truthful). [15] 70.18.186.234 (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I also do not appreciate you using threats or threatening to "take this to the proper places" simply because I made a good faith effort to contribute to this article. Perhaps what I want to contribute may not be popular and I acknowledge it may not present the model minority stereotype in the most positive light, but it is an important contribution nonetheless. 70.18.186.234 (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) You're not listening. It is not an important contribution,because it's your opinion. Wikipedia deals, ideally, in citable, factual information, not in a collection of attitudes and impressions. You have not provided solid reliable citation for something which is essentially YOUR personal beliefs. Your personal interpretation of the effects of a handful of events on a stereotype is not enough to substantiate a paragraph, not even if you find a couple of opinion pieces written which agrees with you. I suggest you register an account, at which time i'll be happy so leave you a welcome template, which is chock full of good links to Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines for good editing. ThuranX (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Where's the neutrality dispute?

This article sports a tag saying that its neutrality has been disputed since October 2007. There's no discussion on this talk page since September 2007 that seems related to that. So what's the dispute? Is there even a dispute? Uncle G (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No clue. No one's ever stepped forward with a specific issue, but there's a lot of POV pushing here. ThuranX (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not this article but the model minority article. That article is full of original research and is biased to the perspective of Asian Americans.YVNP (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Propaganda jap2.jpg

Image:Propaganda jap2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

racist sources

The last sources are from a white nationalist website. Also there's no need for a link to an article about blacks hating asians. Not really a stereotypeYVNP (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Mother Jones is a racist source? and Race to race relations based on stereotypes are relevant. ThuranX (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about american renassaince. That's not a good idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by YVNP (talk • contribs) 09:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Article name

Wait a minute - isn't this talking about all Western societies? Why United States? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Chan clan.jpg

The image Image:Chan clan.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Kill Bill

It makes no sense to say that the James Bond movie and Kill Bill (specially this) are portraying a stereotyped view of asians as weak because the heroes fight a large number of asian fighters. The defeat of a large number of foes by a single hero is something that exists in Asian action movies. Kill Bill was simply making a reference to this, substituting what would often be an asian male men fighting a large number of asian male enemies, for Uma Thurman.

This is very wrong thing to say, specially in the case of Kill Bill, being this a movie that pays homage to Asian fight films. I am removing the related text from the article... -- NIC1138 (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I can’t believe anyone actually wrote that! A lone hero defeating hoards of villains is a staple of just about every action film ever made, western or eastern (including, of course, James Bond, who does not specifically kill only Asian people). Kill Bill has no relevance to this article whatsoever. Grand Dizzy (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is Charlie Chan in this article?

I don’t understand why Charlie Chan is in this article. There is a lot written about the character here, but all it does is describe him — it doesn’t make any point about what he has to do with the issue of Asian stereotypes. So this character happens to have many stereotypical asian qualities. So what? That is co-incidence. It’s not as though the creator set out to create a stereotype character, or that would presumably have been mentioned in the article. It’s not as though a significant number of people took offence to the character, or attribute the character to the propagation of the stereotype — otherwise this would have been mentioned in the article.

The section about Fu Manchu is valid because although it’s just a character, the article says that the character was used by anti-Asians. Clearly, Fu Manchu had some cultural significance. But Charlie Chan? The way it stands now, the whole Charlie Chan section just seems irrelevant to the article. I think someone needs to tie it in more.

Grand Dizzy (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Asian

The article uses Asain as a blanket definition in the most colloquial sense possible. There exists very clear and different prejudice etc directed toward South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans) and South-East Asians (Thai,Khmer, Indonesian, Philippines, Laotian, Singaporean (borderline), Malaysian) versus the perhaps US definition of Asian as North Asian- the Korean, Chinese and Japanese. I will attempt to clarify within the article some f the terms and cross-reference and introduce some text references instead of useless weblinks (not peer-reviewed hence useless).Starstylers (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC) PS I also fixed the above's typo'.

Notes for Edit

I have tried to keep the text as intact as possible, but where grammar or expression was awkward- or overly florid or lengthy- it has been hopefully amended to word the article in a manner that the article is more immediately readable and crystal clear. I have also included some major peer-reviewed texts to provide much stronger authoity for the valid points made in the article. I would assume everyone agrees websites and newspaper can hardly be substituted for tertiary-level monographs. I have also removed references to alleged IQ's percentiles- as these are completely irrelevant- and if the same were being applied on white to Asian- they would rightly be viewed as shamelessly racist. I am confident this edit, from a neutral 3rd party, will improve and appeal to the supporters.Starstylers (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)