416:
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.
392:
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. --
439:
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.
172:(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
180:. 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.
334:"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.
695:
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
583:
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
533:
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
446:
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
574:
I understand that the two are not synonymous. However, it is common practice on
Knowledge (XXG) 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
415:
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
391:
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.
381:
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
21:
Here is another
Knowledge (XXG) 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").
41:
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
Knowledge (XXG) when you have a few pages that are
360:
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
442:
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
434:
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
401:
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
438:
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
464:
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
345:
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
443:
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.
430:
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 .
402:
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.
447:
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.
584:
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. :)
84:"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.
341:, 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
278:
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
311:
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.
26:. 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.
488:
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
493:
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.
371:
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
22:
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
378:
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.
509:
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
123:
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. --
42:
the playground of special interests like this one. This article should definitely be merge with the more neutrally titled alternative.
615:
264:
592:
521:
696:
asiaphile in the english language? To redirect without preserving these valid content is the very definition of Vandalism
469:, and then this needs to be expanded beyond that of a dictionary definition, otherwise it doesn't belong on wikipedia.--
585:
514:
534:
fetish. You can redirect Asianophile, Asianphile, or Orientophile to Asiaphile. these three terms are synonymous.
681:
673:
I find the content of the article redundant as it overlaps heavily with the article that I have mentioned above.
661:
225:
674:
654:
619:
302:
268:
31:
145:
636:
132:
112:
78:
77:
who have been called caucasoid-feature-bearing asians, who are one of the groups furthest EAST on Asia.
63:
361:
more neutral? I'm tempted to scrap the whole article, rewrite it in two or three sentences and stub it.
23:
614:
Is there anything here that couldn't be shrunk down to a few sentences and moved to the wiktionary?
393:
313:
85:
43:
375:. I will remove all such additions to this article. Reasonable additions are more than welcome.
474:
417:
383:
362:
298:
288:
232:
27:
263:
I move to delete them all until there all real sources out there documenting the phenomena?
691:
There are valid entries on this page. They are all for the term Asiaphile and it usage. The
632:
317:
89:
47:
697:
457:
705:
565:
539:
499:
173:
280:
490:
466:
448:
347:
124:
692:
650:
557:
510:
470:
372:
342:
284:
254:
236:
207:
177:
165:
247:
195:
161:
74:
701:
631:
Agreed. The first paragrah is the only part that actually makes sense anyway.
561:
535:
495:
338:
219:
199:
187:
157:
156:
Let me give this a try. There are three Knowledge (XXG) entries to examine:
215:
169:
108:
144:
This article is written in the first person. That needs to be corrected.
103:
I dispute the fact that East Indians, or true Indians are not Asian. In
579:. The two are not synonyms, but refer to the same thing. And while you
576:
575:
two weak-ish articles. For example, the word 'leper' redirects to
243:
709:
686:
666:
640:
623:
599:
569:
543:
528:
503:
478:
451:
420:
396:
386:
365:
350:
321:
306:
292:
272:
257:
93:
51:
35:
73:
have little body hair. There are a people called the
556:Besides there are many embedded references to
8:
297:I move to merge all articles into one.--
131:If it survives, it's still disputable.
649:I support redirecting this article to
484:Why this article should not be deleted
7:
460:Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary
513:might be more appropriate here...
14:
610:Better suited for the dictionary.
710:01:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
1:
624:09:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
421:07:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
397:06:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
387:02:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
366:17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
293:01:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
600:08:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
570:08:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
544:07:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
529:07:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
504:07:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
452:10:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
307:10:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
218:(redirect page) to point to
152:Recommend change to redirect
641:01:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
479:02:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
351:10:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
273:19:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
728:
687:08:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
667:08:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
322:18:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
119:VFD vs disputed & NPOV
94:18:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
52:18:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
36:15:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
258:19:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
148:15:45, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
127:06:24, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
115:04:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
81:04:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
66:04:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
135:21:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
69:I dispute the fact that
62:Isn't this a neologism?
242:Recommend also look at
235:{{{disputed}}} and the
226:Template:Cleanup-verify
356:This article is a mess
228:{{{cleanup-verify}}}
676:мirаgeinred سَراب ٭
656:мirаgeinred سَراب ٭
685:
665:
597:
560:in this article.
526:
233:Template:Disputed
140:Cleanup/Attention
719:
679:
677:
659:
657:
596:
593:
590:
525:
522:
519:
111:covers Indians.
58:Factual Accuracy
17:Here we go again
727:
726:
722:
721:
720:
718:
717:
716:
675:
655:
612:
594:
586:
523:
515:
486:
462:
358:
332:
253:Your ideas? --
154:
142:
121:
101:
60:
24:Asian Fetishism
19:
12:
11:
5:
725:
723:
715:
714:
713:
712:
670:
669:
646:
645:
644:
643:
611:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
572:
549:
548:
547:
546:
485:
482:
461:
455:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
379:
376:
357:
354:
337:
331:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
309:
262:
251:
250:
240:
229:
222:
210:
202:
190:
153:
150:
146:132.205.45.148
141:
138:
137:
136:
120:
117:
100:
97:
59:
56:
55:
54:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
724:
711:
707:
703:
699:
694:
690:
689:
688:
683:
678:
672:
671:
668:
663:
658:
652:
648:
647:
642:
638:
634:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
621:
617:
609:
601:
598:
591:
589:
582:
578:
573:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
545:
541:
537:
532:
531:
530:
527:
520:
518:
512:
508:
507:
506:
505:
501:
497:
492:
483:
481:
480:
476:
472:
468:
459:
456:
454:
453:
450:
444:
440:
436:
432:
422:
419:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
400:
399:
398:
395:
394:Hitsuji Kinno
390:
389:
388:
385:
380:
377:
374:
370:
369:
368:
367:
364:
355:
353:
352:
349:
344:
340:
335:
329:
323:
319:
315:
310:
308:
304:
300:
296:
295:
294:
290:
286:
282:
277:
276:
275:
274:
270:
266:
260:
259:
256:
249:
245:
241:
238:
234:
230:
227:
223:
221:
217:
214:
211:
209:
206:
203:
201:
197:
194:
191:
189:
186:
183:
182:
181:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
151:
149:
147:
139:
134:
133:132.205.15.43
130:
129:
128:
126:
118:
116:
114:
113:132.205.15.43
110:
106:
98:
96:
95:
91:
87:
82:
80:
79:132.205.15.43
76:
72:
67:
65:
64:132.205.15.43
57:
53:
49:
45:
40:
39:
38:
37:
33:
29:
25:
16:
693:Asian fetish
651:Asian fetish
616:68.46.183.96
613:
587:
580:
558:Asian fetish
516:
511:Asian fetish
487:
463:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
418:TomorrowTime
384:TomorrowTime
373:Asian fetish
363:TomorrowTime
359:
343:Asian fetish
336:
333:
299:Joel Lindley
265:68.46.183.96
261:
252:
237:Template:POV
212:
208:Asian fetish
204:
192:
184:
178:Asian fetish
176:side of it,
166:Asian fetish
155:
143:
122:
109:fr:asiatique
104:
102:
83:
70:
68:
61:
28:Computer1200
20:
633:Shinigami27
330:Word choice
248:Orientalism
231:Remove the
196:Japanophile
162:Japanophile
71:east asians
339:user:Tkguy
255:Tony Hecht
239:{{{NPOV}}}
220:Asiaphilia
200:Asiaphilia
188:Asiaphilia
158:Asiaphilia
588:faithless
517:faithless
216:Asiaphile
174:sexuality
170:Asiaphile
449:NickCwik
348:NickCwik
224:Use the
125:Carnildo
577:leprosy
471:Crossmr
435:why...
382:there.
285:Headwes
168:, plus
698:WP:VAN
458:WP:NOT
314:Soda80
213:Change
164:, and
105:FRENCH
86:Soda80
44:Soda80
702:Tkguy
581:could
562:Tkguy
536:Tkguy
496:Tkguy
281:WP:OR
244:Otaku
198:into
193:Merge
706:talk
682:talk
662:talk
637:talk
620:talk
566:talk
540:talk
500:talk
491:WP:V
475:talk
467:WP:V
318:talk
303:talk
289:talk
283:. -
269:talk
246:and
205:Keep
185:Keep
99:NPOV
90:talk
75:Ainu
48:talk
32:talk
708:)
700:.
653:.
639:)
622:)
595:()
568:)
542:)
524:()
502:)
477:)
320:)
305:)
291:)
271:)
160:,
107:,
92:)
50:)
34:)
704:(
684:)
680:(
664:)
660:(
635:(
618:(
564:(
538:(
498:(
473:(
316:(
301:(
287:(
267:(
88:(
46:(
30:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.