Talk:Asiaphile

message: Here is another Wikipedia article that is the product of a small army of Asians out there who insist that simple interest or attraction to anything Asian is obsessive, dangerous, and is akin to a condition that is demented, perverted and criminal (in clinical terms, that would be a "fetish"). They have no proof that said attraction/interest in Asian things is a "fetish." And  yet they insist that it remain part of Wiki architecture. The same is true of the current article Asian Fetishism. I would urge anyone who is either offended by this, or who has interest in guarding against gross bias and unscientific banter being presented as truth, to get involved in editing any articles that make these claims.Computer1200 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the article is that the title is already POV and perjorative. Rather than commenting on the idea of "Asian fetishism" as an encyclopedia should, it is merely articulating and advocating for it. Overall, it harms the credibility of Wikipedia when you have a few pages that are the playground of special interests like this one. This article should definitely be merge with the more neutrally titled alternative. Soda80 (talk) 18:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Here we go again

message: Isn't this a neologism? 132.205.15.43 04:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual Accuracy

message: I dispute the fact that East Indians, or true Indians are not Asian. In FRENCH, fr:asiatique covers Indians. 132.205.15.43 04:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I dispute that any of this matters.  If you'd followed the link to the VFD page, you'd have seen that the page is likely to be deleted. --Carnildo 06:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If it survives, it's still disputable. 132.205.15.43 21:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: VFD vs disputed & NPOV

message: This article is written in the first person. That needs to be corrected. 132.205.45.148 15:45, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup/Attention

message: Let me give this a try.  There are three Wikipedia entries to examine: Asiaphilia, Japanophile, and Asian fetish, plus Asiaphile (redirect page); and decide which to delete, leave alone, or merge.  Can we agree that there are two fundamental differences here?  On one side there is the socio-cultural issue of a non-Asian person with an interest in aspects of Asian culture such as music, food, people, movies.  To my way of thinking this pertains to both the Asiaphilia and Japanophile articles.  Now there is also sexuality side of it, Asian fetish.  One does not necessitate the other.  Regardless of one’s own personal beliefs, the fact does exist that there are individuals who these terms do apply to.  Looking at the history of the pages it seems obvious that these subjects incite some strong feelings by some users here.  My conclusions are below, and I welcome any more eloquent member to amplify with their own thoughts.
* Keep Asiaphilia
* Merge  Japanophile into Asiaphilia
* Keep Asian fetish
* Change Asiaphile (redirect page) to point to Asiaphilia
* Use the Template:Cleanup-verify  
* Remove the Template:Disputed  and the Template:POV 
* Recommend also look at Otaku and Orientalism
Your ideas?  --Tony Hecht 19:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll second that motion. Perhaps "the fact does exist that there are individuals who these terms do apply to," but that alone does not meet the standard for inclusion. Without reliable sources these articles are doomed to forever be WP:OR. - Headwes (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I move to merge all articles into one.--Joel Lindley (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Merge (good) or delete (better). If merged, should be NPOV topic, something like "Racial dating preference" or "Asian exogamy", not some internet slang neologism. That would probably attract better editing, instead of opinionating. Soda80 (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Recommend change to redirect

message: "An Asiaphile is a person with a sexual perversion" Nobody else have a problem with this? I think that perhaps using the word 'preference' in place of 'perversion' would be more appropriate, I feel it jepordises the neutrality of the article. "The term has a negative connotation" <-- Because people use words like 'perversion' to describe it.
user:Tkguy, I appreciate that you want to make the point that this word is sometimes used to imply an obsessive sexual desire for Asian people however, this is the secondary meaning of the word. This discussion is also better dealt with at the Asian fetish page which actually covers this point. I have therefore toned down the language used and put it as a short secondary meaning. Finally please note that there have been a number of wikipedia arguments against using urban dictionary as a source because it lacks any authority NickCwik 10:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word choice 

message: which is all this article currently is. Google news seems to point to number of stories or things about a company called asiaphile which seems to make housewares. Some evidence needs to be given to demonstrate that this is an accepted definition of this term, by reliable sources which meet WP:V, and then this needs to be expanded beyond that of a dictionary definition, otherwise it doesn't belong on wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOT]] Wikipedia is not a dictionary 

message: The main reason for deletion was because the page had no "reliable source" material and the lack of it made it look more like a dictionary entry than a stand alone wikipedia article. I've added 5 sources that meets WP:V so this article no longer looks like just a definition. It focuses on the common usage of the term in the media. The issue that people had have been dealt with. If there are more issues then bring it up. Tkguy (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have declined the speedy request as the article has been completely rewritten following its recent deletion. However, I'm wondering if a redirect to Asian fetish might be more appropriate here... faithless (speak) 07:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for removing the speedy deletion request. As for the redirect, Asiaphile is a term for a person. Asian fetish is a term for an obsession. An asiaphile can have an asian fetish. The two are not the same. They are not synonyms. It would be more appropriate to have Yellow fever redirect to Asian fetish. You can redirect Asianophile, Asianphile, or Orientophile to Asiaphile. these three terms are synonymous. Tkguy (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides there are many embedded references to Asian fetish in this article. Tkguy (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I understand that the two are not synonymous. However, it is common practice on Wikipedia that when you have two subjects which are closely related like this to just have one article that incorporates both. I find it beneficial, really, as it usually results in one strong article, rather than two weak-ish articles. For example, the word 'leper' redirects to leprosy. The two are not synonyms, but refer to the same thing. And while you could have a separate article for leper theoretically, it would not be a very high quality article. And no, I'm not suggesting that an Asiaphile is anything comparable to a leper. :) What I am saying is that this article (and you've done a fine job rewriting it), is never going to be much. It just doesn't have great potential, to be honest. Not that there is anything wrong with stubs, but that's all this is going to be. If, however, you take the info here and merge it into Asian fetish, you're bolstering both articles. Just a suggestion. :) faithless (speak) 08:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this article should not be deleted 

message: Is there anything here that couldn't be shrunk down to a few sentences and moved to the wiktionary? 68.46.183.96 (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. The first paragrah is the only part that actually makes sense anyway. Shinigami27 (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I support redirecting this article to Asian fetish. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭  (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I find the content of the article redundant as it overlaps heavily with the article that I have mentioned above. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭  (talk) 08:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are valid entries on this page. They are all for the term Asiaphile and it usage. The Asian fetish page have none of the entries on this page. So this argument that this page is redundant is moot and an overly broad generalization. If you are going to stick with this argument then write about exactly where it's redundant. Where on the the asian fetish page does is include quotes about the usage of asiaphile in the english language? To redirect without preserving these valid content is the very definition of Vandalism WP:VAN. Tkguy (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better suited for the dictionary.