|The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article. Relevant guidelines covering this situation include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.|
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
I think this article should recieve one of those nice tags, but I don't know how to do that, so I'll bring it up here instead...
To me, this article seems to focus more on describing the results of some primary research, rather than giving a general explanation of the word, as is the intention of the site (as I have understood it). I'm not quite sure what requirements exist, but regardless of whether this article meets them, I feel it could be rewritten to give a clearer definition of the word. 2006-03-20 16:50 GMT - G_urr_A
I would like to point out that this text:
"The image below locates allophilia vis-à-vis its related constructs of prejudice and tolerance."
is not correct, because there is no "image below." I'd like to see one, but not sure what he author meant, so can't contribute by producing one.
- The article list of allophilias don't include disability, because there are many people trying to be "nice" to people with disabilities. Disability needs to be included. Allophilia is a loaded word itself by those criticized political correctness a first step to transform a society (the majority or those with privileges) into one giving their privileges and status away in the name of tolerance or equality. A bit of a far-fetched opinion on what creates allophilia in persons, but Allophilia isn't a pandemic in North American society that I know of . + Mike D 26 13:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
This article seems like original research to me, particularly the last paragraph. I also noted that the citations are from the same author and are not in a peer-reviewed journal, but rather a publisher, who can print whatever they hell they want, be it true or not. Of course, the 'science' of sociology comes across like anyway, since without anything to discover, they just sit around, making new words up for shit we already know. I have never heard this term and I have a vocabulary in six figures. I think this article should be deleted and 'allophilia' should be moved to wiktionary as a definition, if it is a legitimate word at all. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, it doesn't matter whether something was published in a book or in a peer-reviewed journal as far as wikipedia is concerned. For that matter, making the distinction on a wikipedia talk page (where people being able to "print whatever the hell they way, be it true or not" is taken to its logical extreme) might be the most ironic thing ever.MrCheshire (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
A prejudice in theory is a preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience, regardless of whether this opinion is positive or negative. Therefore the entire little "Allophilia scale" graph is preposterous, as it proposes that allophilia is the antonym of prejudice. Allophilia is but positive prejudice; it is just as irrational as negative prejudice. Furthermore, the arrows in the graph make it look like allophilia is the direction in which one must strive which is -again- risible. The middle -that is, neutrality- would be the idea point of balance.
This article describes a neologism, and its sources are mostly self-published
It appears that most of this article's sources were written by User:Tpittinsky, who is also the original author of this Wikipedia article (as seen in this edit here). Several more non-self-published sources should be added to this article, if any reliable sources can be found. (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)