Talk:Asiaphile

Here we go again
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)


 * 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)

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

I dispute the fact that east asians have little body hair. There are a people called the Ainu who have been called caucasoid-feature-bearing asians, who are one of the groups furthest EAST on Asia. 132.205.15.43 04:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Race" is not a fact. "East Asian" is not a clear category of people anyway, but a racial folk belief. Your reference to Ainu is a good example of why it is an artificial category, mostly based on superficial skin and hair attributes. Soda80 (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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

VFD vs disputed & NPOV
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)


 * If it survives, it's still disputable. 132.205.15.43 21:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

Recommend change to redirect
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. Your ideas? --Tony Hecht 19:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 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

I move to delete them all until there all real sources out there documenting the phenomena? 68.46.183.96 (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I move to merge all articles into one.--Joel Lindley (talk) 10:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Word choice
"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)

This article is a mess
First off, I'm not sure, but the word might be a neologism, not even worthy of inclusion. Second, do we really need interjections of "Asiaphiles are dorks (and possibly perverts) who have no idea about hte culture they're obsessing with" after every single sentence? Isn't there a way to make this more neutral? I'm tempted to scrap the whole article, rewrite it in two or three sentences and stub it.TomorrowTime 17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's how it goes. I trimmed the article down to bare essentials. I removed all the sexual and racial insinuations. Go vent your frustrations over mixed race couples or fat geeky perverts to Asian fetish. I will remove all such additions to this article. Reasonable additions are more than welcome.
 * Also, I removed the Asian American category and stub. Asiaphile can refer to *any* non-Asian, not only American ones. Remember, Anglo-American focus is POV.
 * Frankly, I don't think this article should exist in the first place. But as long as it does, let's keep it straight, people. This is an encyclopedia, not a bashing ground. If you hate otaku or perverted old men buying mail-order brides, go find an appropriate internet forum and pour your hearts out there. TomorrowTime 02:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Asiaphiles deal with the type of person who stereotype men and women of Asian culture. This is very, very different from those who study, know and involve themselves in Asian culture. Those people are something called cultural anthropologists and humans who want to learn truly to understand others. It's like saying racism doesn't exist nor acknowledging that racism can go into the other extreme. Or are you afraid to address an issue where people have filias towards certain culture? Where they become so enamored of the culture they fail to actually see the people involved in it. I have no issue with otaku. I do have an issue with men who think that all Asain women should be submissive and they want to marry one. However, I do think it's fair to say asiaphiles has a negative connotation, not a positive one. Cultural filias is just another form of stereotyping. Or are you not acknowledging that sort of thing? I've also heard the words that Asians are only good for Anime... so where do you want to place that one? If there can be Anglophiles, why not Asiaphiles? If this article called all white men Asiaphiles then it's POV, if it just says Asiaphiles tend to be cultural philias meaning they objectify and stereotype people of Asian decent, isn't that true? That's what the root of the words are saying. --Hitsuji Kinno 06:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we're not on the same wavelength here. I'm not trying to diminish stereotypes about Asians or deny the existance of Asian fetish. I have strong feelings about those, but my personal opinion counts for little on the article page. But what you and many others fail to see is the difference between "-philes" and philias. The way I see it, a "country-phile" is genuinely interested in a country and its culture, while a "country-philia" is a sexual inclination. There should be a clear-cut distinction between a Japanophile and a Japanophiliac.


 * The problem with the word "Asiaphile" is that it is NOT an umbrella term, encompassing the notions of "Sinophile", "Japanophile" "Koreaphile" or "Indophile", as one of the previous versions of the article suggested. Each of the other "-philes" is on a quest for better and deeper knowledge about the culture of their choice. A "country-phile" hopefully also respects the culture of the country in question. "Asiaphile" is, on the other hand, something of a contradiction in terms when seen through that optic. How can you hope to achieve better knowledge or respect for a culture, if you lump an entire continent together? How can you do those things, if you apparently make no distinction between China, Japan or Korea, between India, Indonesia or the Phillipines? So somebody who likes Asia because it's Asian can really not have much of an indepth knowledge about Asia. The word Asiaphile can only describe a person with a stereotyped notion of Asia, be it positive or negative, respectful or racist, sexist or not. Such a person can hardly be described as a "-phile". Such a person either has romantic (or other) stereotypes, or is an Asiaphiliac. Or both. That is why I think this term is a neologism. I think it doesn't belong. But nevertheless, as long as it is here, it might as well be a decent article, not the heap of rubish that it was before. TomorrowTime 07:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article was a horrible mess prior to the shortening. I have previously argued that to use the term Asiaphile to imply an Asia fetish is unhelpful (because it doesn't meant that) and is more appropriatly dealt with on that article's page [which is also a mess but at least it's a mess in the right place!].

Anyway, TomorrowTime, I had wanted disagree with your assertion that an Asiaphile is not an umbrella term encompassing someone who could properly be categorised as two or more of the other -philes. I do not believe that such a grouping is a stereotyping in the way you suggest and I will explain why...

First of all you might want to consider that if a person is drawn to particular aspects of, say, Chinese culture (i.e. A Sinophile) then that person is unsurprisingly going to be drawn to other countries that exhibit this particular traits. It is self-evident that a country does not exist in isolation and that any understanding of one country requires a broader regional view as countries bi-laterally interact and tend to share common features within a given geographical example. We might use the counter-example of a European country for example France & Germany. While it is clear that these countries have many differences they also have a great deal in common. If we then look at Japan and China we can see that the first couplet are 'similar' when compared with the second 'couplet'. It is not an unfair stereotyping for a person to be drawn to similarities in these countries and it is also possibly to be interested in more than one country in a region at any one time.

Your distinction between the other -philes and Asiaphile is also artificial. We might equally say that the term Sinophile is a stereotyping in the same way as you argue Asiaphile is; in that Sinophile implies the similarity in all regions of China which are clearly not entirely accurate (i.e. a stereotyping of shared features from an external perspective in the same way as the couplets I discussed above). This does not devalue the term in the same way that the term Asiaphile still carries objective worth in the same way as, say, the term Anglophile.

Even from a totally pragmatic, non-theoretical viewpoint, you might notice that eminent Sinologists not infrequently develop expertise in in Japan as well; or that many people with an interest in Vietnam will also develop an interest in wider Indochina (Laos, Cambodia and even Thailand); often those with this kind of academic inhterest will have an interest in the entire Asia region even if they do not pursue this directly. Asiaphiles would be an acceptable description of these people whereas a country-specific term might be less useful. NickCwik 10:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a dictionary
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)

Why this article should not be deleted
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * Besides there are many embedded references to Asian fetish in this article. Tkguy (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Better suited for the dictionary.
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)


 * Agreed. The first paragrah is the only part that actually makes sense anyway. Shinigami27 (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


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


 * 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)
 * 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)