Talk:Asobi Seksu

Neutrality?
This article is extremely (and subjectively) positive, reading like an advertisement. Faunis 06:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Faunis 05:47, June 2 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. It reads like spam. LoserTalent 11:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Reads like it was written by Yuki's boyfriend. --sirveaux 21:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree - I love this band, but this reads like a gushing (and unreliable) review rather than an encyclopedia article. 69.0.98.137 18:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So many commentators, why has nobody fixed it? I'll leave this page open in my browser and will neutralise it later. --kingboyk 16:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC) PS: Yuki's boyfriend, that would be me then? (j/k)


 * Turns out it was a copyvio from their official site - http://www.asobiseksu.com/bio.php . --kingboyk 20:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

As a translator of Japanese who has been living in Japan for over 10 years, I object to the translation of 'asobi seksu' as 'playful sex'. This is a simplistic direct translation which totally misses the socio-cultural nuance of the term in Japanese. Thus I have edited it as 'casual sex' in English which I feel is a much better expression of what the Japanese really means. Joe, Tokyo, Japan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manualofstyle (talk • contribs) 02:42, 31 July 2007

I am also a translator of Japanese. Been in Japan 10 years. I agree with Manualofstyle and was about to edit this myself when I saw his complaint. "Playful sex" is incorrect. (The problem being that more than likely, neither James nor Yuki natives of Japan, which is also why Asobi Seksu is incorrectly spelled in both Japanese and English. It should be Asobi Sekkusu.) "Casual sex" is correct. This needs to be addressed immediately. -- Made in DNA

Quality of writing
I started a rewrite of the band description which was was clumsily written. Tried to add a bit of context to the 'shoegazing' classification. (rr) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossriley (talk • contribs) 22:08, 12 August 2007

Sportf*ck
Why does someone keep editing out my verified information about the previous name of the band. --Kbhoyt 6, Oct 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For reference, the URL stating their previous name: http://www.cut-up.com/reviews/detail.php?id=3. I'd like to find one more source though, as it seems to be a tricky issue. -- Pepve 13:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * After two years, a second source has appeared. It's a 2009 interview where the name is acknowledged. It's been added as a reference.JohnBWatt (talk) 09:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently that URL is incorrect, it should not be used as a source. So I was told. -- Pepve 16:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been having the same problem over the past month or so, with an anonymous IP address removing all mentions of the name as well the self-titled EP released during that time. I highly doubt that the information at that URL is incorrect since the EP does exist and images of the cover can be found online. Sounds more like the band may be ashamed of their older material and is trying to make like it doesn't exist. In fact, they're probably the anonymous IP's removing the information. If that's the case, it's sad to think that a band would censor factual information and access to their own music.JohnBWatt (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)