Talk:xenomania

I've already provided the citations in response to request for verification. It's not fair that people keep removing definition 3! - "multiculturalism without limits". That's what xenomania is on a societal level. If you disagree, you're a xenomaniac! Eric-heim (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Not really. Yes, xenomania would lead someone to be a multiculturist, but not all multiculturism is xenomania. Many multiculturists are motivated by a desire for fairness or a desire to be open-minded. Whether the result is the same is beside the point. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

RFV discussion: November–December 2020

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

xenomania

Rfv-sense "Being extremely multicultural / pro foreigners without limits." — surjection ⟨??⟩ 16:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

But that's just another (worse) way of phrasing sense 1. It's redundant. Equinox ◑ 17:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Response to Equinox - Definition one does not have a negative connotation inherent in the meaning of "mania", and says nothing about xenomania pertaining to immigration.

Three citations of use in response to request for verification:

1. 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration' By John Zmirak

First page of introduction - "The Democrats' lurch toward open borders and xenomania is carving off large chunks of their base and handing it to Republicans" https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jgcxDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT15&dq=xenomania&ots=BU4L-HYWNN&sig=q0i7Epr_scs44I3J4oux56TUads#v=onepage&q=xenomania&f=false

2. 'Greece: the “others” within' by Andonis Mikrakis, Anna Triandafyllidou

First page of introduction - "Some early surveys tend to support the thesis of "xenomania", implying that Greek society is a potential heaven for immigrants if the public's attitudes are to be considered." https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/053901894033004011?journalCode=ssic

3. 'Rhetoric, Ideology and Social Psychology: Essays in Honour of Michael Billig'

edited by Charles Antaki, Susan Condor Page 128 - "The Greeks have a name for the "sin" committed: ξενομανία (xenomania). A recent Greek dictionary defines the term thus: the uncritical admiration towards foreigners ..." https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gIv8AgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA122&dq=xenomania+AND+foreigner&ots=O3LUIdP5Dg&sig=VldKZa57JFEdbGCtSwu7EpZ3Wek#v=onepage&q=xenomania%20&f=false Eric-heim (talk) 11:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• I added the first use to Citations:xenomania. The second and third are a use and a mention of a Greek word which we should add as a Greek word. (I don't know modern Greek layout conventions else I would have added it.) It appears to me that discussion about Greek immigration policy tends to borrow the common Greek word, which happens to be the same as an English word. I do not see support for the challenged sense of xenomania. If the only real difference is connotation we can add the label (sometimes derogatory) to the first sense. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• I propose to resolve the RFV by rewriting the first sense to read "A strong or excessive preference for foreign customs, manners, or institutions" and deleting the third. Comments? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  How about "[...] for foreigners or for foreign customs, manners, or institutions", since google books:"xenomania" foreigners suggests it's sufficiently often used to refer to love of foreigners and not only their customs and manners? This also makes it more obvious that sense 3 is redundant. - -sche (discuss) 19:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

  Agree. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Rfv-sense: I put the citations in the other rfv page. Eric-heim (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• We now have an edit war on xenomania over the removed/restored "without limits definition. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Not anymore. I blocked @Eric-heim from editing the page for two weeks so we can close this properly. If it's decided that the deletion of the sense was improper, it can be restored with no opposition from me- but Eric-heim isn't the person to make that determination. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

This is posted at the top of the page's discussion, beyond the part that's allowed to be edited (!):

I've already provided the citations in response to request for verification. It's not fair that people keep removing definition 3! - "multiculturalism without limits". That's what xenomania is on a societal level. If you disagree, you're a xenomaniac! Eric-heim (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Not really. Yes, xenomania would lead someone to be a multiculturist, but not all multiculturism is xenomania. Many multiculturists are motivated by a desire for fairness or a desire to be open-minded. Whether the result is the same is beside the point. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

This definitely appears to be an attempt to smear me. Mine was intended to be a private message.

And for the record, I didn't advocate that all multiculturalism was xenomania. It seems that Chuck Entz was considering multiculturalism to be out of control and that he must defend it as it is. I specified a condition - multiculturalism without limits. In any case, these people exhibit xenomania. Because if I challenge them logically in the sense that being extreme about anything can be a bad thing, the response is going to trend towards two directions. They'll either find it very difficult to concede that truth, or slightly concede it and somehow attack my character for some other aspect that can be leveraged.

I suppose the reason it was difficult to find more of recent, direct citations for a possible negative state of multiculturalism is the prevailing multicultural push of the past few decades. It started out with good intentions - yes, we all want all different ethnic groups to succeed. But what started out as just a marketing effort to assist that aim has turned into mad double standards and extreme hatred against white conservatives. And the prevailing individualism so traditionally strong in Western culture drives liberals such as these to literally challenge the very reality of the definition societal-level.

There is no such thing anymore as open-mindedness towards white conservatives. There is no such thing as fair debate about racial issues. If there was, the definition I put forth would have at least been posted with a 'derogatory' label. And even then, this whole discussion never could have taken place in person. Not even over a phone call. Hell no.

I'm going to delete my account now. And then I'll probably be hunted down and "avenged" in some form anyway. Don't even trust these words - could be edited by them afterwards for some slant. I'm not coming back here. Eric-heim (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

No attempt to smear: you posted a comment on a public talk page, and I responded to it. That's what talk pages are for. I wasn't defending anything, just explaining. Whether multiculturalism is good or bad has nothing to do with intent: well-meaning people can be wrong. You keep equating "multiculturalism without limits" with "xenomania", but xenomania is love of foreign people or things, while multiculturalism (with or without limits) is tolerance of foreign people or things. One can tolerate what one hates.

This is a dictionary. "Xenomania" is a word, and a definition is about what it means when people use it. Whether multiculturalism without limits is xenomania is irrelevant to whether "xenomania" means "multiculturalism without limits". People who like Fox News may be conservatives, but that doesn't justify adding "someone who likes Fox News" as a definition at "conservative".

This isn't about your political beliefs. I've probably spent more of my time reverting and blocking people for inserting negative comments about Donald Trump and other conservatives then I have reverting and blocking people for doing the same against Hillary Clinton and other liberals. This is about your trying to put things in dictionary definitions that don't make sense as dictionary definitions. We have lots of entries and senses reflecting conservative usage, some of them that are insults or vilifications against multiculturalism. Why would we leave those but remove this, if was just about ideology?

By the way, there's nothing to stop you from editing above the rfv-result box. It's the same as editing below it- just don't change anything inside the box, which is an archive.

As for your final comments: a dictionary is not the place for a debate- fair or unfair. As a descriptive dictionary, our purpose is to document language as it is used, from a neutral point of view- that is, without slanting the description for or against anything. I'm sure some bias manages to creep in here and there, but we try very hard to avoid it. No one is persecuting you for your beliefs, we're keeping you from adding a bad definition to a dictionary entry.

Finally, re: "Don't even trust these words - could be edited by them afterwards for some slant", if anyone but you edits your words, they will be reverted (and blocked if necessary). Editing other people's comments on talk pages or discussion pages is not tolerated. The whole idea behind that statement is silly, anyway: if someone wanted to edit your words to slant them, the first thing they would edit would be the statement itself. Besides which, your original edit is there in the revision history, and no one can change it. We could hide it, I suppose, but not change it. Even hiding is unlikely, because there's nothing in it disruptive enough or against the rules enough to justify that. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)