Talk:Oikophobia

Merge the 2 versions

The article does indeed need a discussion of usage before Scruton, but too much good stuff on current usage was deleted when doing so. So may I suggest that we simply merge the 2 versions. DougHill (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. But use a new Heading for anything not relating to Scruton. I don't want to confuse new usage with old or whatever. I state that this term "oikophobia" in this article refers specifically to Scruton and his writings. If you want to split hairs change "coined" to "used". But you need cites for 19th century usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasser24 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

To RohnJones and the vandals: I just saw your message at my Talk. Fine. But could you please tell me the names of the articles written by Wayne Olajuwon, TwistOfCain, Xxanthippe and Dougweller? How do I find out? Also, could you please revert to the article before the attack began on November 13? I have a life and didn't notice until today.Vasser24 (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Following RonhJones advice: Why are you putting 19th cent. usage (one paragraph in an obscure book, that must have taken hours to find!) above an eminent living philosopher and writer for the Wall Street Journal?Vasser24 (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually it took only a few seconds. And Robert Southey isn't obscure. We should deal with the use of the term in historical order. And you need to read WP:OR, WP:OWN anhd WP:NPA - to repeat what I put on your talk page. And why do you want to know the names of articles we wrote? Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, I've got about 53,000 edits to my name (including blocking hundreds of real vandals) and I'm an Administrator and a clerk for the Arbitration Committee. I've created a handful of articles, I generally rewrite and source articles I'm interested in. Maybe I'm not a vandal? Maybe there have been no attacks, just trying to make a better article? You should also read WP:AGF. Dougweller (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Clearly this article is about the word and its usages. Equally clearly, it takes very little research to identify the fact that the 1808 quotation from Southey appears is many sources as the origin of the widespread use of the term. Southey claims that the term already had circulation in medical literature, but I can't easily find anything pre-1808. Southey is expanding on a medical term to make a wider cultural comment about wanderlust, much as Scruton is in his own different way. However, it's clear that the principal established meaning is "fear of home", which sometimes means a literal fear of one's own home, family etc and sometimes of ones homeland. It appears regularly in dictionaries of psychiatric terms. It is also spelled ecophobia in some sources; however, unfortunately the word "ecophobia" has also more recently been given the meaning "fear of nature" and crops up with both that meaning and the more established meaning in recent literature. Paul B (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"to bash postmodernists and leftists" - You are giving away your bias. Thanks.Vasser24 (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"Southey is making a wider cultural point about English wanderlust and Scruton is douing much the same" - You are making a fool of yourself, Mr. B.Vasser24 (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"The article is supposed to over the usage and meaning(s) of a word." - Here I'll agree with you, Mr. B. Curiously, the section heading entitled "Usage" was deleted by Weller. Why?

Wow. You are rather confused, aren't you? It's very simple. We explain how the word has been used and has evolved. Why is that a problem? Paul B (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Existential Context of Oikophobia

I fear you are attempting to stifle an idea you find irksome. Namely the alienation of intellectuals and artists (in the West) from their own culture. You are deliberately missing the point of Scruton's existential definition and the point of the article and are attempting to trivialize the original ideas presented in a well-researched and cited manner. Otherwise, why trivialize Scruton and delete the Taranto link?Vasser24 (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, MiniTrue has leaped into action ... but what's going to happen when Taranto comes back from his break on the 22nd? Is this going to help Wikipedia's reputation, or further tarnish it about any topic that's "political" ... which almost everything is nowadays ("The Personal is Political" after all). Hga (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

But this isn't an article about alienation of intellectuals and artists in the west, it's an article about 'oikophobia' which has several meanings. Maybe we should include Taranto, but we should also include its use over time, which is something it has now. It's still used to mean "being afraid of home surroundings" and "an aversion to home life" - see [1]. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Which is it? You are contradicting yourself. How can oikophobia have several meanings but the one originally presented not be allowed? The word Kafaesque comes to my mind: "Another definition would be an existentialist state of ever-elusive freedom while existing under unmitigable control." - Wikipedia

Also, isn't xenophobia the other side of the same coin? Shouldn't we be applying the same standards there (and I can think of quite a few others). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasser24 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No-one wants the 'original meaning presented' to be excluded. Indeed it is not excluded. Why do you make statements that are palpably false? Paul B (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Related terms

Some possibly related terms include go native and clientitis. I suggest adding these to the "see also" section of the page. I'd be wp:bold and do it myself, but of course I cannot now. :-) However, I will go ahead and a link to this page on those pages. DougHill (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting articles. Certainly seems appropriate regarding oikophobia.Vasser24 (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

weight and undue weight

I went to the Rules section concerned with weight or balance and found this: "For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief."

If you substitute "19th century (Robert Southey) oikophobia" for flat earth you'll see that the rules seem to suggest that the original definition (of the article) should be at the top of the page since it is the one most modern readers would be interested in, and not the History of the Term, as informative as that may be.Vasser24 (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oikophobia has more than one meaning - still, even though Scruton's given it a new twist. There is no 'modern position' or 'now-discredited belief'. Dougweller (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If you really wanted to improve the article you would find contemporary uses for Southey's definition. I will do likewise for Scruton's. This should tell us which definition is considered to be more useful and valid.Vasser24 (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, we are not as editors meant to be deciding "which definition is considered to be more useful and valid". That's original research. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Then why do you put a definition (one of at least two) at the beginning of an article that is clearly a minority or obsolete use of the term? If a majority believed in a flat earth five centuries ago and no longer do then you very sensibly put the contemporary usage before the historical usage of whatever earth-related topic of the article. This is stated in your own rules.Vasser24 (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Not my rules, 'our' rules, why do you say 'your own rules'? I've pointed out that there is still considerable contemporary usage of the term that isn't influenced by Scruton. And online dictionaries. There is no 'clearly a minority or obsolete use of the term'. There's a use in political circles/media (mainly righwing) and another use outside that realm. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Scruton definition Usage

Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, Oikophobia, August 30, 2010 4:18 AM | Posted by Kent Scheidegger:

James Taranto at the WSJ has found a word for an attitude that often comes up in debates on crime, especially capital punishment, although the focus of Taranto's column is the Ground Zero mosque dispute. The word is "oikophobia."http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2010/08/oikophobia.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasser24 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC) ShrinkWrapped, A Psychoanalyst Attempts to Understand Our World. OIKOPHOBIA: INTRODUCTION, September 03, 2010:

Last week James Taranto resurrected Roger Scruton"s Oikophobia, defined as per Wikipedia: Scruton defines it as "the repudiation of inheritance and home," and refers to it as "a stage through which the adolescent mind normally passes." An extreme and immoderate aversion to the sacred and the thwarting of the connection of the sacred to the culture of the West appears to be the underlying motif of Oikophobia; and not the substitution of Judeo-Christianity by another coherent system of belief. The paradox of the oikophobe seems to be that any opposition directed at the theological and cultural tradition of the West is to be encouraged even if it is "significantly more parochial, exclusivity, patriarchal, and ethnocentric". http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2010/09/oikophobia.html

James Taranto, Oikophobia, Why the liberal elite finds Americans revolting, Wall Street Journal, August 27, 2010:

If you think it's offensive for a Muslim group to exploit the 9/11 atrocity, you're an anti-Muslim bigot and un-American to boot. It is a claim so bizarre, so twisted, so utterly at odds with common sense that it's hard to believe anyone would assert it except as some sort of dark joke. Yet for the past few weeks, it has been put forward, apparently in all seriousness, by those who fancy themselves America's best and brightest, from the mayor of New York all the way down to Peter Beinart.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704147804575455523068802824.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinio

Kuro5hin: technology and culture from the trenches, Oikophobia; antonym: Xenophobia, By anaesthetica in anaesthetica's Diary, Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 04:41:05 AM EST:

A chronic form of oikophobia has spread through the American universities, in the guise of political correctness, and loudly surfaced in the aftermath of September 11th, to pour scorn on the culture that allegedly provoked the attacks, and to side by implication with the terrorists.http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2009/2/5/4415/3786

Eunomia: Clearing the East of Christianity: Ignorance, Oikophobia or Alienation from Christianity?, July 1, 2006

. . . so we are either seeing an outpouring of oikophobia with respect to our Christian brethren, a startling demonstration of American ignorance, or a widespread admission that “we” are not really like the Christians of the Near East but apparently have more in common with their persecutors with whom we unwittingly or knowingly align ourselves.http://larison.org/2006/07/31/clearing-the-east-of-christianity-ignorance-oikophobia-or-alienation-from-christianity/

2 Blowhards, Roger Scruton and Oikophobia:

Scruton also invents a nifty new word -- "oikophobia" -- to fight back against those who use terms like "racism" and "xenophobia" to stifle legitimate discussion of important matters.http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2006/06/roger_scruton_a.html

Muck and Mystery: I'm Late, I'm Late: June 24, 2006:

The recent exposure of U.S. anti-terrorist methods by journalists - though not illegal, immoral or fattening - seems an example of U.S. quasi-leftist, pseudo-intellectual oikophobia. The intellectual neoteny of oikophobics is striking."http://www.garyjones.org/mt/archives/000335.html

Why was this deleted? Original research?

We have a stalemate here. I'm quoting a source, Russell Means bio/memoir called "Where White Men Fear to Tread" and you keep calling this original research. I have read the Wikipedia article on this and I am not violating this rule since it states original research as "not attributable to a reliable source." I don't do that. What's the problem?Vasser24 (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Simple question, where is your source that links Means and oikophobia? It appears as though you are trying to use this article to make a point (presumably Scruton's point), whereas the article is about the word and its uses. Google books seems to turn up a lot of non-Scruton related uses of the word, many more, at first glance at least, than Scruton-related ones.

The only blogs we would normally use might be opinion blogs in mainstream newspapers, not garyjones.org or blowhards.com, etc.

Obviously we mention Scruton, but in a balanced way and not in such a way that the article turns into some sort of political article. I found another mention of Scruton:

"This nolion of being dis-eased in some way has also been mirrored by British authors, with the claim that multiculturalists suffer from 'oikophobia' {Scruton 1993), and relativists suffer from 'veriphobia' (Bailey 2001). The fact that most of the people who suffer from Ihese conditions would be happy lo do so indicates that many of the serious discussions about political correctness are battles concerning the nature of'the knowledge that higher education should be dealing with." in Political Correctness and Higher Education: British and American Perspectives by John Lea. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"Simple question, where is your source that links Means and oikophobia?" The link is the whole point of this definition: Alienation from the dominant culture. The word and its uses: the word needs to be defined. Its not what you seem to think it is (although I can't believe someone as intelligent as you doesn't understand alienation). Russell Means book offers further insight into this phenomenon. Russell Means is an example as it were. I also then connected this to Karl Marx and his alienation to Judeo-Christianity. See? These examples help the reader to understand this particular definition of the word oikophobia. By all means, add your definitions. Just leave mine alone.

I'm not trying to prove any point. We are living in a complex world. Oikophobia is a complex idea. I was attempting to condense this idea into as little space as possible and demonstrate to readers who are not eggheads what it means via Roger Scruton.

The only blogs we would normally use might be opinion blogs in mainstream newspapers, not garyjones.org or blowhards.com, etc

I put the blogs under Usage which you deleted. If someone is using the term for whatever meaning they think it has - why not put it in Usage?

"This nolion of being dis-eased in some way has also been mirrored by British authors, with the claim that multiculturalists suffer from 'oikophobia' {Scruton 1993), and relativists suffer from 'veriphobia' (Bailey 2001). The fact that most of the people who suffer from Ihese conditions would be happy lo do so indicates that many of the serious discussions about political correctness are battles concerning the nature of'the knowledge that higher education should be dealing with." in Political Correctness and Higher Education: British and American Perspectives by John Lea.

Excellent. Put it in. Either in Background or Usage.

":Obviously we mention Scruton, but in a balanced way and not in such a way that the article turns into some sort of political article."

Talking about being "balanced" is like asking who gets to be Dictator. What you really said was: ". . . the article turns into some sort of politically incorrect article." Now we're coming to the crux. Its my belief that you are attempting to trivialize Scruton's definition. Aren't you being political? Why is that? Could it be you don't like the political implications? If you are going to go around deleting everything in Wikipedia that might have political implications, well Weller, you are going to be very busy. Of course there are political implications. If you don't like Scruton's then add your own. But I see no reason to censor mine. Are you going to tell me there are no political implications in the Xenophobia article? For instance, are Muslims xenophobic? Why the emphasis only on the West? Do you have any idea what other cultures think of foreigners? I do having lived in China and India. They would laugh at the very concept of xenophobia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasser24 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't read WP:NOR yet, have you? Perhaps you are used to writing essays, but an article in Wikipedia is nothing like a normal essay. No Original Research is one of our core policies, and the policy page has a nutshell definition, ": Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." Please read our policy. If you want to use Means in this article, you must have a reliable source (see WP:RS that uses the term in discussing Means. If you disagree, we have a discussion board where you can raise the issue, see WP:NORN. And you really need to stop making everything personal. You are of course correct, almost everything is political, I should have written that this shouldn't be turned into an article making a political point. Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I note that the Admin who protected the article noted that original research is a good reason to remove material. I see you are calling yourself the 'primary editor' of this article. There is no such role. You've got no special rights just because you created the article. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have read the NOR and RS, several times. I cannot see that I am violating either rule. RS says, "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." I am doing that with all my carefully documented sources, even page numbers. NOR says, "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented." I have not broken that rule either. Do you mean the term "oikophobia" has to be used in the original source?

": Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." - Why do you feel I'm breaking this rule? Could you please be more specific?Vasser24 (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the term 'oikophobia' has to be used in the original source. Using Means as an example without relying on a source linking him with oikophobia is original research, it is your interpretation, and as editors that's not our role. This is a common problem for a lot of new editors, I fell foul of it myself at the beginning. Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:SPS discuss blogs. Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to know. I'll use this for deletion of many, many articles at Wikipedia.Vasser24 (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

And if you continue to do that in the manner in which you are doing, you will find yourself blocked. I suggest you calm down, and confine yourself to resolving the issue with this article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Vasser24, 24 November 2010

{{edit protected}}

I think we've agreed at least on the inclusion of Usage heading and Taranto article in the Wall Street Journal for Oikophobia article. Thank you for your consideration. Vasser24 (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm lost. A quote on usage that doesn't mention the word being used? That won't work. Dougweller (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Disabled request, please continue to discuss. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is entitled "Oikophobia" and he talks about Scruton's definition. Why is this losing you?Vasser24 (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Any quote about Scruton's usage should use the word. That seems obvious. Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Usage

James Taranto, Oikophobia, Why the liberal elite finds Americans revolting, Wall Street Journal, August 27, 2010:

If you think it's offensive for a Muslim group to exploit the 9/11 atrocity, you're an anti-Muslim bigot and un-American to boot. It is a claim so bizarre, so twisted, so utterly at odds with common sense that it's hard to believe anyone would assert it except as some sort of dark joke. Yet for the past few weeks, it has been put forward, apparently in all seriousness, by those who fancy themselves America's best and brightest, from the mayor of New York all the way down to Peter Beinart.

References

Talk page has been reorganised (not by me)

Vasser24 has rearranged the talk page - I won't try to fix it right now, but it isn't something editors should normally do, as it moves other editors posts. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that. I just wanted to put the Usage section into the undue weight section and didn't want to duplicate. I certainly don't mind if you move it back.Vasser24 (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Blogs

Please see WP:VERIFY, which explains when we can use newspaper/magazine blogs and why we generally do not use other blogs. None of the links actually worked so I've fixed them. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern for wanting viable sources. But I am trying to establish the contemporary use of Scruton's definition as being more relevant than Southey's. I'm not using Usage as a means to define "oikophobia". If you can find people out there using Southey's definition (or another non-clinical one) then that is good too but I would wager Scruton's is far more prevalent. To me, Southey's should be in History of Term section following Scruton's definition.Vasser24 (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, they should both be in the history of the term. I also think the lead is clumsy and needs rewriting, but shouldn't just mention Scruton. I already gave a recent (this July) use, [2] ""Oikophobia" is not the anxiety of meeting "oicks" on the street. It's about being afraid of home surroundings and having an aversion to home life." It's in the 2009 "The Complete Idiot's guide to phobias" [3] and numerous medical, etc. books written in the last 20 years. Here's quite a different book, similar usage [4] and here in a book on motherhood. [5] The meaning varies with the audience, basically. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Southey's usage to mean "English wanderlust" was clearly popular for a period, but that's now very firmly historical. The standard meaning - fear of home - has been used consistently for two centuries and continues to be used. Scruton's meaning has been picked up by some bloggers (and vulgarised by some of them), but per WP:RECENT, we should take that to be too significant. His usage has yet to become mainstream. Paul B (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to start with a section at Roger Scruton

His article doesn't mention this at all, which suggests that the first priority should be to build a section there. How about it? Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Scruton is a sophisticated thinker, which Taranto, on the evidence of the article quoted here, frankly, is not. It is unfortunate that the crudities of the later should get equated with the complexities of the former, but Scruton has written on many many topics, so it's difficult to know what's worth mentioning in the main article. Paul B (talk) 12:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Having looked the article on Scruton, I think you're right. There's surprisingly little on his quirky neo-high-toryism, so I've adapted your version of the section and added it there. Paul B (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Liberal etc

Vasser is demonstrating his intellectual prowess again. The word "liberal" is not used by Scruton in the way that US conservatives use it (as a sort-of weird synonym for left wing). Indeed it is not used in that way anywhere in the world other than the US. His conservatism is an avowed position in the Burkean tradition. You don't have to be politician to be a conservative (or a "liberal" or "leftist"). The English word "phobia" means an irrational fear, but the Greek word from which it derives does not mean that. We do not quote Wikipedia articles, absurdly adding "sic", as authoritative definitions in other Wikipedia articles. If you think there is an error in the article phobia, correct that article. Paul B (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

"it is a feature of some, typically leftist, political impulses and ideologies". I think Scruton would characterize it as neither left nor right nor political but as a negation of the sacred. Oiks believe in nothing outside of their careers. Vasser24 (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

"The Russian Orthodox Church abounds in escape routes for men, and with honours and privileges which will reward their loyalty. Take away faith, however, and those privileges are no longer consoling. It is then that the dreamer becomes dangerous. Unable to enter society, and without the vision of another world that would prompt him to accept the imperfections of this one, he nurses an unstaunchable wound of resentment. His 'right divine to govern wrong' goes unrecognized, by a world that gives more credit to material than intellectual power. At the same time, he instinctively identifies with the poor, the oppressed, the misfits - those at the bottom of society, who are the living proof of its injustice. He turns against religion with the rage of a disappointed lover, and refuses to recognise the virtue of any earthly compromise. There arises the peculiar frame of mind of the exalted nihilist - a posture brilliantly described by Turgenev and Conrad, and exemplified in virtually all the characters who instigated the Bolshevik coup d'etat."

This is what Scruton means when he talks about arrested adolescent development, the atheist dreamer. Vasser24 (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)