Talk:Japanophile

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 12/18/2006. The result of the discussion was Kept..
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 01/08/2008. The result of the discussion was Kept.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Japanophile article.
Article policies

Contents


[edit] rename it to say weaboo217.24.21.126 (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious

Article moved, Japanophile → Japanophilia

I oppose the move. Japanophilia is a dubious name for the article. Japanophile is more commonly used. Also, the cited dictionary source ("Webster Unabridged, 2002") has an entry for "Japanophile" but has no mention of "Japanophilia". "Japanophile" gets more Google counts, and is used more often, qualifying it as the article name per WP:NC. Please discuss and get consensus first, before making such a move.--Endroit (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Well I don't know that the issue should be of frequency of use. This seems to be a grammatical problem to me. Do we name the article after the "condition" (Japanophilia), or the people who fall into that category (Japanophiles)? Looking at other articles in Category:Cultural Enthusiasm it seems to be a mixed bag, but Category:Phobias lists only the condition. Since a "philia" is the opposite of a phobia, and the phobia articles are named consistently, I think that all of the Cultural Enthusiasm articles should be named "-philia" as well (with redirects from "phile"). -Amake (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The people with the condition ("-phile") is the more significant phenomenom, hence it gets more Google counts. Right now, the only other "-philia" I see there in Category:Cultural Enthusiasm is Russophilia. Most of the other entries in Category:Cultural Enthusiasm seem to be "-phile" rather than "-philia". And this article was Japanophile, until it was unilaterally moved. So it would seem more standard to keep all these articles at "-phile" instead.--Endroit (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
      • "The people with the condition ("-phile") is the more significant phenomenom [sic], hence it gets more Google counts." — That's meaningless, since you can't have the phenomenon without the people. Frankly I don't feel that strongly one way or another, but if we're to take the phobia articles as a guide then clearly "-philia" is preferred. (And by my count there are four "-philia"s in Category:Cultural Enthusiasm out of 17.) -Amake (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Stop counting Google hits. Do proper research. Your other reasons are completely specious. So the name isn't the same as those in the other category. Big deal. We have plenty of categories where articles don't all have the same name. And in any case, several of those articles are badly named, too. (Sinophile is one that is screamingly wrong.) They could probably do with fixing like this one has been. Why do you think that this article went for so long with rubbish/no sources? Why do you think that the only citations that people have been coming up with were dictionaries? (Indeed, why do you think that Sinophile hasn't had any sources added?) It was in part because everyone was looking for the wrong thing, because the article had the wrong title. The actual encyclopaedic subject is Japanophilia (and, indeed, Sinophilia). Once one figures that out, sources are much easier to find. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • We name the article after the topic that it discusses. And what it discusses is Japanophilia. Because that's what all of the sources that it is based upon are discussing. They aren't discussing a Japanophile. They are discussing the phenomenon of Japanophilia. Just like pedophilia discusses the phenomenon of paedophilia, and isn't entitled "paedophile". Come now! Naming the article after the topic is basic stuff. I suggest reading the article to see what it talks about. It gives the name of the subject in the very first sentence. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've never heard/read the term "Japanophilia" until now, but I have heard/read "Japanophile" many, many times. I agree with Endroit that the most common should be where it is located, and I'm fine with Japanophilia redirecting to Japanophile. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • What you've never heard of is neither here nor there. This is an encyclopaedia. We don't base it around what people have heard of. We use sources. Go read the sources and read the article. See what the actual encyclopedic subject is. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that "Japanophile" is probably more common than "Japanophilia", but simple analysis of the structure of the word indicates that "Japanophilia" is the more general of the two. Looking at other articles about "conditions" (I wouldn't call -philias "diseases" per se) such as phobias indicate that the name of the condition is more appropriate for an article title. (Another example: Hypochondriasis, not hypochondriac which is a redirect.) "Japanophile" might be appropriate for a "List of Japanophiles" (god forbid such an article should be made). In other words I agree with Jonathan, but I don't think he needs to be such a dick about it. -Amake (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
      • But is Japanophilia really a scientifically coined concept of pathology or sociology like pedophilia and xenophobia are? Could it not be just a term to refer to a group of people who like Japan and things related to Japan? --Saintjust (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Obviously, to the degree that "Japanophiles" exist, yes, "Japanophilia" exists as well. -Amake (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Francophile, Slavophile, Sinophile and the fact that the term is not in common parlance. Moving to "Japanophilia" without sources is just as much based on original research as the current title is claimed to be, and implies that there is a common motivation for the interest in Japan that designates someone a Japanophile, another thing yet to be proven here. Dekimasuよ! 05:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Of course we have sources. You can find citations for them in the article. And Japanophilia is what they discuss. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Faux dubiousness

Two the "dubious" notices are against things that are exactly as written in the sources. As such, I've taken them out. Several of the arguments above are clearly based upon not even reading any of the sources. Because if one had, one would have seen that Japanophilia is what they discuss. For goodness' sake, please knuckle down and actually read the sources that are cited, all of you! Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Well the page move was dubious, and that was the reason I added the tag. Also, the preliminary page move discussion above reached NO CONSENSUS to move the article to Japanophilia. Therefore, I requested a formal WP:RM request on your behalf, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard. Also, you deliberately deleted text describing Japanophile, and added your own about Japanophilia. I added back a few mention of Japanophile, but more can be added later... it's no big deal. The question is: What will be a more appropriate title for this article, "Japanophilia" or "Japanophile"?--Endroit (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I removed content that had a request for verifiability outstanding here on this very talk page for nigh on four months. That's enough time for sources to have been found. Don't add it back unless you can find sources. This is verifiability in action. Unverifiable content may, can, and will be removed by any editor. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 11:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allison

Does Allison [page number?] mean to imply that "youth across the globe" previously admired Japan's corporate practices and economic success"? If not, what's she on about?

This is the one good question asked so far. And my answer is that I think that she does. She's the source that underpins what the article says about American children taking Japanese language classes, and she talks about a "fascinating shift" in children's attitudes since WW2, encompassing the 1980s' economic bubble. As for what the page number is: It's in the citation. As well as reading the sources, please read the citations, too. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll try to get hold of the book. Meanwhile, I don't have it and I infer that you do. So: Does Allison cite credible research for assertions such as this? I note that her book is published by a university press, but some claims that she makes seem farfetched and a lot of books published by university presses, especially books on "cultural studies" and the like, do contain a lot of dodgy material. -- Hoary (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • You can actually read the relevant pages on-line. The ISBN hyperlink in the citation is your friend. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • By the way, she's this Anne Allison. This is an expert writing in her field of expertise based upon, as the Acknowledgement section of the book says, her own extensive fieldwork. Now contrast that with the complete absence of any sources at all, reliable or otherwise, in this article for over 3 years prior to this. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to move. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 11:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Japanophile → Japanophilia — We name the article after the topic that it discusses. And what it discusses is Japanophilia. Because that's what all of the sources that it is based upon are discussing. They aren't discussing a Japanophile. They are discussing the phenomenon of Japanophilia.The previous is a quote from User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard, who wishes the article moved to "Japanophilia". —Endroit (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose — Japanophile is more commonly used (although the article is about BOTH "Japanophile" AND "Japanophilia"). Also, the cited dictionary source ("Webster Unabridged, 2002") has an entry for "Japanophile" but has no mention of "Japanophilia". "Japanophile" gets more Google counts, and is used more often, qualifying it as the appropriate article name per WP:NC.--Endroit (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Specious reasoning based upon a meaningless metric. Go and see what we do with "paedophile" and paedophilia. I explained all this to you before, including pointing out what subject the sources actually discuss. You appear to be putting zero effort into actually reading the sources, depite being asked to do so again and again. Stop using the meaningless metric and do proper research! If you aren't reading the sources, how much credence do you expect the rest of us to place in your opinions? Please stop reading only the dictionary and start reading the history books and socio-political analyses. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support — All phobias and medical conditions share the same naming scheme, which is to name the article after the "condition", not the people who are "afflicted" by the condition. The "condition" here is "Japanophilia", and the article should be named such. Either way, all articles in Category:Admiration of foreign cultures should be named consistently. -Amake (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't like to think of this as a [psychopathological] "condition" and indeed its reminder of "necrophilia" and the rest first inclined me toward "Japanophile", which is certainly a much more widely used word as well as one that (to me) has less of an odor of sexual perversions or straitjackets. If there were some word without the {phil} morpheme or some set phrase meaning love of Japan, I'd happily go with that. As it is, I can't think of any. Japanophiles seem to share little other than Japanophilia (or whatever one wants to call it); and so once I put aside the connotations, naming the article "Japanophile(s)" seems strange. (It also risks degeneration into something like a list, once our younger contributors excitedly add that this or that pop singer keeps a Gozilla doll on his mantelpiece.) So: Japanophilia, Sinophilia, Lusophilia, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That's exactly what Endroit's argument below is leading towards, except that for "pop singer" substitute "popular artist". We don't get a decent encyclopaedia article just by collecting a long laundry list of people who individually exhibit Japanophilia. But we do get one by writing an article based upon historical and sociological analyses of the phenomenon that scholars have already done for us. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:ADJECTIVE. EJF (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • What does WP:ADJECTIVE have to do with this case? Both Japanophile and Japanophilia are nouns. — AjaxSmack 01:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:
Mrs. Monet in kimonos, 1875
Mrs. Monet in kimonos, 1875
If this article were really about "Japanophilia" (or "an interest in, or love of, Japan and all things Japanese"), the image to the right may be included as an example of Claude Monet engaging in "Japanophilia" in the 19th century (long before the arrival of cosplay). And a true topic of "Japanophilia" should have some mention of European impressionist painters being influenced by ukiyo-e, as well as art collectors in those times being interested in Japanese (and Japanese-style) works...Japonism.

However the word "Japanophilia" has not been used in literature to describe the proliferation of Japonism in 19th century Europe. Let's not kid ourselves... This article talks about "Japanophilia" alright, but it only discusses a subset of the behavioral pattern defined by the word. If we are bound by the actual usage of the words "Japanophile" and "Japanophilia" in literature, then the article name should be "Japanophile" because it is the one more commonly used.--Endroit (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This article talks about "Japanophilia" alright, but it only discusses a subset of the behavioral pattern defined by the word.
  • A while ago I spent some time dabbling with this article, and I found that a lot of the problems with it stemmed from the fact that the same word meant several things to several editors - add to this everyone's conviction that they all agree on the meaning, and you've got a recipe for disaster. So... Can we clarify what everyones idea of Japanophiles/Japanophilia is? TomorrowTime (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Like I mentioned above, I don't think there is a common set of traits or root causes that defines "Japanophilia", while the set of people who have (for whatever reason) an (inordinate?) interest in Japan are often referred to as Japanophiles. This makes it hard for me to accept the idea that there is an article to be written about "Japanophilia" as a unified concept. Dekimasuよ! 02:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The argument that there's no commonality also applies just as well to writing about Japanophiles individually. And it's nonsense. For pity's sake go and read the sources! They discuss Japanophilia. That you don't have an appreciation of an overarching concept encompassing many people as a group is neither here nor there. The sources do, and they are what counts around here. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That's quite the opposite of what you should be doing. Constructing some ad hoc definition amonst a group of Wikipedia editors that has no basis in external scholarship is exactly wrong. Read the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Then go and read the sources and see what they discuss, as I've asked editors over and over to do on this page, and which only one editor seems even willing to do. They tell you what Japanophilia is, discuss instances of it, and document it. Is Hoary the only editor here who is interested in actually putting Wikipedia's official policies into practice? It's bad news for Wikipedia if the editors who are willing to apply the official policies outnumber the editors who are unwilling to do so by a factor of more than 2 to 1. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Flattery of myself is always welcome, Jonathan; but I can live without it. Let's cool down a bit. Yes, TomorrowTime (TT) regrets that the same word meant several things to several editors - add to this everyone's conviction that they all agree on the meaning, and you've got a recipe for disaster. And TT invites all to agree on what it does mean. However, there's nothing in that invitation that precludes either multiple definitions or discourages people from citing their sources. TT lets me respond by saying that on page such-and-such of The Deer Cry Pavilion Barr uses the term to mean such-and-such. [Drat, I can't: I gave my copy of that book away last month.] Perhaps TT ought to have made this clear, and we may regret (or even be pissed) that TT didn't; but if so then the more collegial approach would be not to blow up at TT but instead to respond "That's an interesting idea, TT, but can we also ask writers to give specific cites?" I'm less of a stickler for "civility" than lots of editors on WP, but amicability has much to be said for it (even when one is boiling on the inside). -- Hoary (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "a true topic of "Japanophilia" should have X, Y, and Z" — So get your nose out of Google and out of a single dictionary and go and find history books that discuss that aspect of Japanophilia and expand the article. What on Earth makes you think that the article is finished, and cannot discuss any more episodes of Japanophilia in various countries that are documented by historians, sociologists, and the like? Is Wikipedia full, again? Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.