Talk:Allophilia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is dubious[edit]

[dubious – discuss]

This article is dubious. Its premise and presentation is fundamentally flawed.

The premise that "allophilia" was coined by Pittinsky and used in 2006 is incorrect. "Allophilia" was used by Sponsler in her 2000 book, "Alien Nations". According to this Google n-gram, use of the term was recorded from the 1950s: link.

The presentation of the article that allophlia is a fundamental part of sociology is wanting. The article does not provide evidence that allophilia has become a mainstream part of the research and teaching of sociology. Acceptable evidence could be the insertion of the concept into sociological university curriculums and textbooks (and then citing these).

The article is essentially a description of the research into allophilia by a few authors. Unfortunately, that is not a place for Wikipedia. It may be better put in sociological forums. Or, if the article must remain, it ought to be retitled "Research into allophilia", and rewritten to reflect that it is about the research. (Of course, the fundamental error of coining needs to be corrected, though that alone casts the entire article in a dark light.)

Untitled[edit]

I think this article should receive 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)[reply]

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. 64.149.231.167 (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think the concerns expressed above stand. I have proposed this article for deletion. Miguel Andrade (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It is original research, unfortunately.
If not the article being deleted, it ought to be re-written, such that it expresses that 'these' were the research of 'this group.'
The leading statement: "In sociology, allophilia is having a positive attitude towards outgroup members." is misleading. Firstly, it says "in sociology"... the article was penned by the original author and is fairly recent (2000s). Can a single person claim ownership of the entire field of sociology to declare the inclusion of a particular phenomenon is inherent in that field? It could be re-written "In sociological research.... "
Isn't allophilia just prejudice? Already having positive feelings towards something one hasn't experienced? KendrjickWright (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allophilia scale[edit]

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.

Also, this entire article is quite ridiculous. This is but a neologism, isn't it? Oulipal (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Oxford Languages definition of prejudice: "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." (link).
This can be "negative" prejudice or "positive" prejudice in the English-language.
Also, the person who coined the term could not find an antonym in the dictionary.... which dictionary and in which languages? The full Oxford English Dictionary is over 500k words (https://www.oed.com/). And there are many words in other languages, that don't have a direct single-word translations into English, e.g. "estar" in Spanish. KendrjickWright (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes a neologism, and its sources are mostly self-published[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Allophilia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Allophilia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Negative aspects of allophilia[edit]

I presume strong allophilia can involve the psychological shadow (Shadow (psychology)). I wonder if any "negative aspects" of allophilia have been researched that can be added to the article.

104.228.101.152 (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

I removed the external links 'Weaboo' and 'K-pop' because the former is oddly specific and the latter has nothing to do with the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZuivereDúqì (talk • contribs) 05:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allophilia&oldid=1204739452"