Talk:Asian fetish

A source on definition

While digging around some more I just found this book which talks about the origin of the term "Asiaphile" which might be quite useful for us to include. [1]. Specifically it says "The term "Asiaphile" was coined by Stephen Hay to describe those Western Critics of Modern Rationalism and materialism who searched for an alternative in Asian Intellectual traditions." While the meaning has slightly changed these days I think this original definition should be worked into the article.--Crossmr (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

offline sources, online copies

looking at this old version of the article [2], I'd like to revisit several of the old sources and see what could be useful. There are a number of offline sources presented there. Does anyone have digital copies of the sources or relevant parts of the sources we could discuss and look at?--Crossmr (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Article is very problematic

This article seems to have quite a few problems with POV and original research. The Columbia University study, while tangentially relevant, wasn't Asian-specific (it also investigated relationships involving other ethnicities). Even the fact that we have an "Asian fetish" article, but not a "Hispanic fetish", "African-American fetish", or "Caucasian fetish" article smacks of POV and possibly racial bias among Wikipedians. In my opinion, I don't see why we should have this article at all. I'm not going to nominate it for deletion myself because it's been "kept" so many times in the past, but the way it currently stands is a complete mess. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a matter of notability, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The columbia doesn't have to specifically be about asians or asian fetish to be relevant. Asian fetish is an idea/concept/theory/whatever used in many contexts to describe how some people think other people feel about something. If hispanic fetish or another kind of fetish developed a similar notability an article would be appropriate. the problem is that right now there aren't enough quality sources really discussing the term heavily enough to expand this much beyond a stub.--Crossmr (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

naming

is it just me or is the article name offensive

fetish is attraction to non-human object

Asian people are not human? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.84.1.3 (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

There are many articles with 'offensive' titles, but that doesn't mean that their subjects do not exist in the world. (see above Crossmr's response to the section on this talk page to "Article is very problematic"). "Nigger" is an ugly and overtly offensive term, but does that mean we should turn our eyes from it, and pretend that it doesn't exist? Wikipedia isn't endorsing or promoting this term by having an article on it any more than having an article on racism promotes or endorses racism. It is just a common term used by millions, however offensive.
On the other hand, I urge editors to discuss other commonly used terms for the same subject, if such exists. It would be helpful because if offending people can be avoided, that is certainly positive. However, I am not at all certain a more desireable, and more commonly used term exists.
As to the definition of fetish, you are only partially correct. See definition #3 at the wiktionary entry for fetish. Hamamelis (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)