Talk:Xenophobia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

	This article is within the scope of the Discrimination WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of discrimination topics. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

[edit] Objective tone?!

"There are no laws to prevent the use of racial slurs, due to the fact that the nature of the slur is not generally understood. Thailand's understanding of the issues of xenophobia is hindered by a strict hierarchical society, the presevation of which impedes and narrows the relevant social educations in favour of nationalism and insular unity."

I would love to see a source for that slur against Thai society. If noone objects I'll revisit the article later and rewrite it, maybe actually find a factual source as to Thailand's universal ignorance of xenophobia. 124.182.238.219 (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How about an article on actual fear of extraterrestrials

I know it sounds ridiculous, but there are people out there (including me) who actually fear extraterrestrials, and an article on this fear should have a redirection from here.

Don't you know that extra-terrestrials control the internet? Quick! Switch your computer off before they download any of their intelligence into your brain!

I don't know about everyone else, but I've been scared of Greys since I was 3. I just recently got over them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.194.16 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stub note

This needs a stub note (he he) rt, given that it isn't a proper noun. But maybe we need to talk about organizations in which xenophobia is a major tenement, such as the KKK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizen Premier (talk • contribs)

Or the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LtDoc (talk • contribs)

We don't use wikipedia for editorialization, LtDoc. Citizen Premier 00:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Haha! The USA funny...but both sad and true..many times Caleb09 00:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

Why does XenoPHILIA redirect to this page? It doesn't make sense that you get the exact opposite word that you're looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.107.82.135 (talk)

Good catch. It was changed from -phil- to Xenophobia here. Not really sure about solution - a short article would be best. Xenophilia is also a Linux distribution and someone will try to add it there, I bet. Pavel Vozenilek 20:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen or heard xenophobia used as a specific phobic anxiety disorder (e.g., claustrophobia, agoraphobia, arachnophobia). I have usually seen it used in a political context. A certain public policy or attitude may be xenophobic, but that is not to say that the affected individual or policymaker has a high-anxiety-inducing fear of all things foreign. It may signify distrust, hostility, and nationalism more than an anxiety disorder. I do not doubt that some people genuinely panic when they enter a Mexican restaurant or see a Chinese person, but I don't think this is xenophobia as most people understand it.--150.243.119.136 04:07, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural/Social Fear

I think though xenophobes could be a subset of racists, if yuo analyze the root of the word, logically it denotes a FEAR of strangers rather than a bias against strangers. I realize that racism is an issue that needs to be confronted in a world that is PC and tends to cover up the issue but I think bringing in racism isn't an appropriate topic in this particular entry. I would view a good example of xenophobia as a social or cultural fear such as rather isolated or homogenous society like Japan and its treatments of any non-Japanese people (which can and does lead to racism but on the whole, as a society, they are xenophobes) or the natural suspicion that ancient civilizations had of their neighbors. So, at the most, I think that racism could be a possible symptom of xenophobia but it's a corollary relationship and not synonymous. Thank you. --kainee —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.147.44 (talk)

01/10/2006 wrote by kelly davis i can honestly say that i know a xenophobic person. he is hungarian/american and has huge issued with blacks, asians, and hispanics alike. he becomes extermely distressed around hispanics. the only difference between this phobia and other phobias is that this one is chosen. it is a phobia based on hate not fear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.8.70 (talk)

humans are "racist" and "xenophobic" by evolutionary selection, as soon as people stop pretending that we're not supposed to be, the sooner a lot of problems can be dealt with realistically and solutions found.

[edit] psychology?

"This form of xenophobia can elicit or facilitate hostile and violent reactions, such as mass expulsion of immigrants, or in the worst case, genocide." How does the APA make this implication? Intangible 00:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humans and Animals

There is a line in this article saying "Xenophobia may be a natural tendency in humans, as such behaviour is common among other animals.". I believe this is violating the NPOV (Neutral Point of View) policy, because many people do not believe or consider humans to be "animals"...so do you think we should maybe reword that? Caleb09 00:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not being facetious but if humans aren't animals what the hell are they? Fungi? I can only assume these "people" aren't biologists! I think its been scientifically demonstrated that at least a large subset of human behaviours have parallels in the behaviours of other species. I'm sorry I really have to disagree with you - humans can be seen as animals, as humans, as walking collections of atoms - these are all valid and they all depend on the current level of analysis so I really don't see what's NPOV about the animals comment since from a biological/scientific point of view its unimpeachable. This has no bearing on whether or not the rest of the sentence is correct or not of course. 82.20.22.76 20:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

We're not animals, we're the spiritually advanced race of "others" granted special status by God. Gee, are you stupid? Of course people are animals, at least from a biological perspective. We're also apes, which pisses people off even more. We fit into both definitions, but some people refuse to believe it due to some belief that we are somehow above all that. I blame Western religion. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 00:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no question here. By very definition we are animals. A side-effect of thinking we are better than others leads us to believe that there is a difference between humans and other animals. TUF is right in the previous response, but most people refuse to even read the definitions. Zab 15:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarity

I have recently been accused of "vandalizing" the Xenophobia page. I am a newcomer and, unfortunately, am unaware that any of my modifications violated the rules of Wikipedia. I have had difficulty trying to reply to messages; will the person who made the accusation please let me know exactly what I did wrong? Noclevername 15:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The editor who put the warning on your talk page retracted it with the edit summary 'oops', implying that the warning was placed in error. The editor had intended, I think, to add a warning to an anon-ip talk page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. Noclevername 22:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

As a "noob" you'll come to realise that Wikipedia is a political environment, and many people "guard" pages (like trolls under a bridge) with the "watch" feature. You will be accused of vandalising whenever you "correct" a page that is full of a particular contributor's prejudices; this is why Wikipedia is rubbish; and doomed never to be taken seriously - you are better off creating your own wiki, because you will then never face the frustration of an edit war with an opinionated troll (usually a student).

[edit] Cleanups

I did some cleanups to the page that are bordering on radical. Someone with a different POV than me take a look and see if there is still citable material that needs to be removed. My issue is that I don't think we can adequately cite this article without linking to examples. So, let's find examples. Thoughts? Zab 09:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thought

So, Xenophobia is Racism with a different name? --66.218.14.42 22:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Xenophobia is to Racism as American is to Caucasian. Zab 06:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect. Xenophobia is misused as an epithet and synonym for racism; it's correct defintion is that of an IRRATIONAL fear and hostility to "foreigners" (which does not specify race)

[edit] Why only on Japan?

I could write books about xenophobia in Ancient Rome, Greece, Byzantium, etc. So why hasn't at least a paragraph been left for these? Why only Japan? Why not China, whom had taken this to the extreme during the Boxer rebellions and so forth.Tourskin 00:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason you won't find them in the article is because nobody has wrote about them yet, _you_ included. Personally, I don't know enough about the Romans and their neighbors to write about them. If you do, then why even ask? Zab 15:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs major overhaul.

This article needs a major overhaul. In the opening paragraph, it defines xenophobia as limited to fear/hatred of foreigners, and is at pains to distinguish xenophobia from racism on the grounds that one of a different race may not necessarily be a foreigner. The citation for this is that source of all knowledge, Reference.com, a dubious source for a reference. Furthermore, the citation is false; that is, if you read the definition at Reference.com, you will find that they define the term more broadly to include that which is foreign or strange -- a definition which, as others have pointed out, is both more in line with popular usage and more correct etymologically. In short, whoever cited Reference.com arbitrarily narrowed the definition from discrimination against anyone/anything foreign or strange (which would include race) to discrimiation against foreigners, as if citizenship, residence, or country of origin were the only things covered by "xenos".

However, it gets worse. In the sociology section, after the diatribe against the politically leftist tendencies of Western academia (whatever that would mean), there is a long discussion of the biological underpinnings of (i.e. evolutionary adaptations which favor) selection of one with genetic similarities to oneself. Therefore this part of the article attempts to explain why people discriminate against perceived racial/ethnic/biological markers, regardless of citizenship, residence, or otherness indicated by the term "foreigner". And so this section, while on the whole relevant, works against the (inaccurate) opening definition.

The article is therefore in need of expansion and cleanup, as it is nonsensical as is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.103.197.157 (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

I agree - major NPOV, hence I have addressed this with an attempt to add obkectivity. The main problem as I see it was a lack of understanding of what a phobia is: it is an IRRATIONAL fear or hostility. It is not irrational to fear immigrant populations if objective statistical evidence and research (not to mention empirical evidence) points to a problem clearly connected to a cultural clash with, and natural ethnic self-segregation from, an immigrant or minority population (which is often happens).

It's important to note that all the evidence is that humans (and most life forms) form groups; are territorial; compete as groups for control of territory and resources; territory is also an intrinsic part of ethno-cutltural and linguistic identity. 87.112.72.201 21:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Promsan (I can't be arsed to sign in)

Xenophobia is not a phobia, the connection is etymological. A phobia is a clinical disorder. Xenophobia can be rational. --Ezeu 21:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

incorrect; it can be clinical; and to suggest otherwise is to imbue an epithet with the authority of science: this is the logical fallacy of blinding with science; I don't know know about America, but in Britain, a phobia is an IRRATIONAL fear. The inclusion of the word "irrational" is key to the NPOV and accuracy of this article.

It is rational to be hostile to immigrant populations, this is well supported by evolutionary psychology evidence; to describe this hostility as phobia, one is implicitly making a moral judgement on a behaviour that is widely agreed in science to be instinctive; and thus such a subjective moral connotation is irrational and unjustified. Obviously, Wikipedia contributers rarely know what they're talking about; but at least make the effort instead of loading this article with mock-liberal tripe. Articles are not meant to be trolled, I don't care you're admin, I've been editing Wikipedia on and off for years.

No... Ezeu is correct. Xenophobia is nothing like a clinical phobia. People don't psychologically have irrational fears of different people as a rule. Xenophobia is more often a political or socio-economic conscious decision someone makes. As such, when such broad exceptions exist, it's no longer appropriate to label it with the blanket statement of 'irrational'. Trusilver 22:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

NO, you are incorrect. Xenophobia can be a clinical phobia, and is misused as a political epithet. It is not a conscious decision someone makes, it is driven by instinctive motivaition: please READ A BOOK! (better still, do a degree!) Don't parrot things you don't understand. Phobias are by definition irrational, as the article states by saying "...like all phobias" - come on, read! follow the links! then think!

If you (incorrectly) wish to state that Xenophobia is not a clinical phobia, then don't say "like all phobias"

Need I remind you that you are already on a final warning for personal attacks? Trusilver 22:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War

read the article.

it says "xenophobia is a phobia" it then says "like all phobias" and links to "phobias" the first line of phobias reads "a phobia is an irrational fear"

this is correct

and xenophobia, like all phobias is an irrational fear.

this article lacks NPOV, and you are simply trying to edit it to suit your political views, which is unacceptable on Wikipedia.

don't treat me with contempt, I've been editing on Wikipedia longer than you, and I know what the rules are, more to the point, I don't see any evidence that either of you know enough about this subject to edit on it.

the article should be reverted to something resembling my original edit, because the current content is simply inaccurate and politically biased.

87.112.72.201 22:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Promsan

While you are certainly welcome to your opinion, it fails to change facts. I for that matter fail to see any evidence that you know enough about the subject to edit it. Your posts are counterproductive and contentious and every bit as POV as your accusing others of. Trusilver 22:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Large Space

There is a large space between the "General" subtitle and its text. This appears to show up due to a large table on the side. Does anyone know of a way to move the table further to the right-side so that the wall of text is moved up? Joshua Graham 09:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that large white space when using a different computer and an older version of explorer. I have changed to {{fact}} tags instead. --Ezeu 12:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Partially un-NPOV sentence

Quote: "Modern emotionally-charged, political Left moralists term 'racist xenophobia...'" seems to violate NPOV. Just my two cents.

Tolerant666 19:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree.

DavidParkes 22:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] other countries

like the u.s. we are trying to close the border to keep out Mexicans.

[edit] Haitan

Isn't the Haitan treatment in the Dominican Republic really more related to racism then xenophobia? From the description, it sounds like it to me Nil Einne 01:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is absolutly. But there has been an organzied effort by a group of very protective editors to censor and erase completly any attempts to mention racism and xenophobia in the Dominican Republic at all. Any attempts to include, metion or offer explanations as to why, even when they have multiple sources are erased or reported as vandalism in order to hide it from the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by La romana 31 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Xenophobia in Thailand

The word 'farang' is NOT slang, and not necessarily derogatory, and further, it is NOT a shortening of the word 'farangset', which denotes France. 'Farang' simply means foreigner, and current linguistic theory suggests its root in in the word 'ferengi', an ancient Persian word for foreigner.

Frequently, Western, non-Thai speakers mistakenly assume Thais are being disrespectful when referring to them, in the third person, as 'farang'. Actually, in this writer's experience, Thais have difficulty with Western names, and find it easier to use the generic 'farang'. Also, it is used to specify someone of obviously different appearance, as an expedient to distinguish them from ethnic Asians in, for instance, a crowd.

The section on xenophobia in Thailand should be rewritten to include examples of actual discrimination, of which there are many. These would include double-tier pricing, the Foreign Business Act, various immigration rules, etc. Thaliand's culture is QUITE xenophobic, but the word farang is NOT a good example —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schwartzenheimer (talk • contribs) 15:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that 'Farang' is NOT a slang and, by itself, is NOT derogatory. However, I disagree with the suggestion of a Persian root. Farang is exclusive to person of European appearance. Person of Middle Eastern or Indian apperance are referred to as 'Khaag' and never 'farang'

While the influence of Portuguese trader and mercenaries dated back to the 1400s and trades with Persia go back much further, the word 'Farang' did not come in to context until the French arrived decades later (after the Portuguese and the Dutch).

In my experience, the word is used to describe any stranger with European appearance and as soon as one is introduced one becomes Mr. Bob or Mr. Jones - and no longer a Farang. As such, it is no more derogatory or disrespectful than saying 'that tall guy'.

I am not at all convinced that the Thais are xenophobic. This country was ever a 'closed country' at any time in history (contrast to China, Japan, Burma, USSR) There is no 'official religion' for the country. There is no fashion or cultural police in Thailand (contrast this to France and Iran). Most, if not all, of their culture and language is practically adopted or adapted from countless other cultures (eg.- China,India,Persia,England,France,Portugal, USA). English is taught from kindergarten on, in parallel with Thai. The common language is not sanitized and full of foreign (English, Chinese, American, French, Russian) words and phrases. In the beach town of Pattaya, the street signs are in FIVE languages - Thai, English, Chinese, Arabic, and Russian. Sign of all kind in English and Chinese is commonplace. Most locals will try to communicate with you even if they can't speak English (or whatever language you may happen to be speaking at the time) Most locals will invite total strangers in to their home and treat them like a VIP Most locals are so eger to mimic and adapt foreign behaviours/cultures.

While I agree that discriminatory practices are rampant there, I can not clearly associate known examples to xenophobia. The double-tier pricing is nothing but an opportunistic behaviour. They figured that if one can afford a trip from some far away place one must be able to afford the extras surchage - which they tag on to just about everything. Unless one shops in a department store, the marked price is negotiable and negotiation IS expected (I find this rather tiring).

The Business Act, as explained to me, is about protectionism and not necessarily nationalism. They had quite a problem a while back with wealthy foreign investors coming in and buying up the countryside. That, of course, displaced untold number of subsistence farmers and their families (some had the number in the millions) so the governement decided to do something about it.

And, as far as I can tell, the immigration law is pretty generous. One only need to show proof of good conduct and ability to support oneself in order to immigrate and it takes only ONE Thai parent to make the child a Thai citizen regardless of the place of birth.

-DRK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.150.22 (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not accept that non-natives in Thailand are mistaken in viewing the word farang as xenophobic, hence I have changed the use of "non-native mistakenly believe" to "some non-natives believe". It is very apparent in Thailand that protecting the dignity of Thai society and culture is of supreme importance to Thais, hence it is no surprise that Thais wish to sweep aside any criticism of Thai national behaviour by stating that the use of farang is not pejorative. The use of the work "chink" is not thought to be insulting by 94% of people who use it in the US, but is thought to be insulting by most people it is used to refer to. (see the entry on this word for research details showing this). The same can be said about the word farang. Just because Thais do not acknowledge or admit that the word displays their xenophobic thoughts and behaviour, this alone does in no way prove that it is not xenophobic behaviour.

The use of the word is so common that it is my belief that Thais see this xenophobic behaviour as normal and not xenophobic or pejorative, which may explain their inability to admit that this is evidence of xenophobia. Or it may be that their national pride and self-esteem will not allow them to admit such xenophobic behaviour. However, its existence is very apparant to some foreigners. A good example would be when a foreigner is in a shop and is referred to as "farang" by the shop assistants rather than as "person" or "man/lady" or "customer" which would be more appropriate and polite. The fact that Thais prefer to use the word farang in this dehumanising way is strong evidence that labelling of foreigners as something alien and different based on their appearance is a national obsession in Thailand, which I believe is caused by xenophobia i.e. wishing to differentiate foreigners, treat them differently, and hold them at arm's length from Thai society, albeit done in a smiling rather than aggressive manner.

Any word in any language can be deployed in a derogatory fashion, even the word 'sir'.

One can not go about the world being offended by the unfamiliar or accuses everyone else whose behaviour fails one's approval as having ill intent/motive, this is madness.

A casual outsider going about condemning the behaviours/norms of the native population of another society/culture is an excellent illustration of a xenophobic behaviour.

-DRK

DRK, you are obviously a Thai or heavily addicted to Thailand. Your comments are ridiculous. Would you have said the same to an observer of UK society 40 years ago if that commentator said "A casual outsider going about condemning the behaviours/norms of the native population of another society/culture is an excellent illustration of a xenophobic behaviour" when he saw British people using the word "nigger" to refer to anyone of apparent African origin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.195.201 (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a user who is intent on watering down the Thailand section. For example, "some non-natives believe that" was edited to "a small number of non-natives balieve that". Unless this person can produce some statistics showing that only a small number of non-natives believe this, then the use of "some" is more factual and should not be replaced.

MI

"Farang" could be derived from the persian word "fereng" or likewise. In India, people used to refer to foreigners as 'firangi'. This is derived (from my knowledge) from 2 words "feeka" meaning light and "rang" meaning color. Given the colour of the skin of the europeans this is how the usage of the word might have come into play and hence might have been used. Moreover there is no solid proof that the word farang has any roots in french. For all you know, the French might have used the word they learnt in India to describe themselves in Thailand.

SSS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.123.15 (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zenophobia

I've noticed in some other books and stuff that xenophobia is also spelled zenophobia. Can anyone find out if this is fact? If it is, I think it should be added. Kitty2008 16:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Switzerland

First I'd like to say that I am very happy to learn than xenophobia was unknown in Switzerland before 2003. Clearly we're immune to Wikipedia:Recentism and WP:UNDUE here.

Now, I'd like to see some common sense. One cannot state as a fact that a law is similar to another just because some sensationalist article in a foreign newspaper made the comparison. What's true is that some journalist, at some point, in a wave of sensationalist fad, said so. And at encyclopedia level, we don't care.

What we now have is one particular incident (in fact an electoral provocation) which is discussed and interpreted at lengths with three miserable sources. But there's no discussion of immigration flows in Switzerland, nor of typical xenophobic discourse.

This reminds me of the "allegations of Appartheid in XXX" series, where some people with a precise thing to say would harvest Google hits for punctual articles containing some words, with no regard for the general picture of the situation, the relevance of the articles or, in some case, even for their actual meaning. Rama 09:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know. It's not yet a law, but the article is talking about xenophobia. When there are sections from other countries telling xenophobic sentiments even in an obscured way, why can't tell the fact the sentiment exists in Switzerland? — Indon (reply) — 09:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

National elections, popular vote, 1919-2003. I can make out three periods:  :1. interwar, the "classical" situation of the bourgeois FDP+CVP holding >50%, with farmers' and workers' interests represented by about 15% and 25%, respectively.  :2. WWII and postwar: a weaker SVP and stronger Social Democrats, with a communist fringe during the Cold War, and with the LdU introducing a "centrist" platform :3. 1980s to present: decline of the classical "center", but huddling of the former leaders FDP+CVP as the new center, with polarisation of nationalist fringe party-lets on one hand and the rise of the Green Party on the other. Since the 1990s absorption of the radical right into the SVP. Discuss Swiss politics in these larger terms, not by hysterical notes on latest news.

This is a ridiculous point. Xenophobia exists everywhere Human beings are, to some degree. This article is not a collection of factoids, but an analysis of the general phenomenon. Some understanding of how things work are in order. If you want to discuss Swiss politics, you should understand Swiss politics. Shoving points into people's mouth to illustrate a point is unnacceptable.

[1], typical example: the SVD has gained 29% votes ! ZOMG, far-ring wing tsunami !

Well, no.

The SVD obtained 29% of the votes. It gained 4% on its previous result. While certainly an electoral victory, this is not a tusnami, and does not even change the picture of Swiss politics. It's practically a non-event.

And now, what's the connection between such electoral results and xenophobia ? This article is about a deep, everlasting and complex problem, not some newswire.

To illustrate, a graph of the Swiss political spectrum from 1919 to 2003. Rama 09:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

the SVP gained 2.3%, not 4%. Read all about it on Swiss federal election, 2007. This isn't relevant to "xenophobia". What is mildly relevant is their "black sheep" campaign. See also right-wing populism. That's still a recentism. Yes, there is a certain latent potential for xenophobia in Swiss population (as in most populations I suppose). There had been a much stronger surge in the early 1970s (for which see James Schwarzenbach). Try to discuss things detachedly and in context. This is an encyclopedia. Alarmist parading of latest headlines isn't that interesting or helpful. dab (𒁳) 16:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Countries cited as example

I'm not sure whether this makes sense to cite some countries, just because they are in the news, because they like their national anthem, or because they have a pejorative word for foreigners. Examples can be more generic, without concentrating on five countries, while the same phenomenon is to be found everywhere.TerreOcre 22:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

hear, hear ! Rama 22:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is taking a wrong turn. Again, there are only a few countries that are mentioned, while we should admit that xenophobia exists everywhere. Then the title has been to changed to “notable instances of xenophobia”, giving the reader the impression that these are the worst countries for a foreigner to live in. Add to this a tendency for Wikipedia:Recentism, and forget to mention major cases of xenophobia (the part on South Africa is interesting in this relation, already heard about apartheid? it was a different phenomenon, but still very related), and you get something I would call a bad article.

Is Japan a notable instance of xenophobia because they excluded foreigners during two centuries and now did not fully comply with the UN convention? Well, perhaps did they try not to get colonised as for the first point, and for the second, if you have a look, you will notice that most countries did reservations to the convention, and failing to adapt their legislation to a single clause of the convention does not mean that they are bad guys. As for the UN Rapporteur, he has criticised every country he has visited.

Is Switzerland a notable instance of xenophobia because a right-wing party gained a few additional percents of the vote in the last elections, and the country was screened by European Commission against Racism and Intolerance? Well, as for the results of the elections, there is still no evidence that this was related to a manifestation of xenophobia, and the ECRI reports in the same on all European countries, and in each one they found something to criticise. What? France too, Denmark, and even Andorra? But why in world are these countries not mentioned here as well?

The USA and Thailand were also cited in this part, have been deleted, now they have been replaced by others. Perhaps we should avoid to list countries in this way and work by categories instead, or at least abstain from mentioning what is just being reported in the news. Or is the objective here to list all countries of the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TerreOcre (talk • contribs) 02:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Xenocide?

Why is xenocide in the "see also" section? The link points to the book "xenocide" which doesn't really relate to anything in this article. I just wanted to bring it up in discussion before I took it out. --Doctor It (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also: Daily Mail

To put it lightly, I am not a fan of the Daily Mail. However, I can only assume that its inclusion in the "see also" section (alongside racism and discrimination) is some sort of gag. I'm not saying it isn't funny, but...86.147.29.147 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dominican Republic

I deleted a paragraph that cited unreliable sources. Actually the sources given did not back the arguments. The sources were newspapers articles about a controversy being raised because of a documentary in New York City, where a large amount of Dominicans live. The newspapers didn't support the ideas. Besides it talked about Duarte's (the Dominican founding father) alleged racism, rather than actual or past xenophobia in the Dominican Republic.

Even the rest of the section dedicated to the Dominican (and maybe other parts of the article) is more related to possible racism, than to actual xenophobia.Dominican (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Xenophobia in the Dominican Republic

Xenophobia in the Dominican Republic is well documented by Amnesty International, The United Nations, The New York Times, Miami Herald, The New York Daily News and El Diario La Prensa among others. To remove it completly is an attempt to censor and hide it by nationalists that have been convinced by certain elements within the government of the Dominican Republic that is some kind of conspiracy to hurt the tourism industry.

The fact is that Xenophobia in the Dominican Republic is well documented and is very much taking place. Any attempt to remove it should be considered vandalism and censorship.La romana 31 (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What about Australia?

Does the White Australia Policy qualify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddie.primal (talk • contribs) 11:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Strange Conclusion

I don't know whether anybody has noticed it or not but the topic on "Sociobiological Explanation" under Xenophobia ends with a strange and offensive remark. Please clean up the article. Iamsouravin (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)