Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

The dispute goes on da da dum da da dum dum dumb

It will be far more constructive if Man With A 69th Lightswitch, Transportation Contraption Cleaner, and Noloop discuss the specific concerns they have with the disputed section here. I know you think you've said it all before Noloop, but welcome to WP. If you want consensus you will need to persuade other editors that your view is the correct one. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What would be most constructive is if you left. You are a Third Opinion supposedly neutral editor in a dispute which now has 5 opinions and you have actively taken sides and edited the article. Why do you think I think you're a troll? Noloop (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What would actually be constructive is if you looked back at your behavior Noloop.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 15:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Iranians/Persians have been never anti-american.

Majority of Iranians/Persians like American people... all those chanting and murals are from the government or minority of people in Iran. there is a huge gap between the government and persians in the country ,as we all can see it in the news these days .Ycarcomed (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are saying the article should say this then it does, it makes it clear that many Iranians admire the US. That the murasl are govenemtn sponsed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The passage in question was added by trolls. It doesn't even properly link one of the refs, it is loaded with weasel words, POV, and the refs don't support what is said. FYI, "many" is not the same as "majority." Noloop (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop, Your harrasment will not affect me anymore.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here)

21:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

but i didn't find anything in the article saying or making it clear that iranians admire the US?!Ycarcomed (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"however, many Iranians admire the US[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are. It " is in the article, it might be you read one of Nollops non consensus (there are a majority that agree this passage should stay) reverts. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for reply, yeah because last time i checked the article it was not there,and why Noloop doesn't want it to be there?Ycarcomed (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say the whole paragraph shouldn't be there, on grounds of WP:WEIGHT, weasel words, and general POV bias. See my "General Principles" below. Noloop (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't half talk some bollocks. Anti-Americanism is a point of view therefore it's reasonable to expect POV statements (that are supported by references). The whole point of the article is to educate the reader what anti-Americanism is. One can only do that by showing examples of it and why it exists. To do that one must show the POV of the outside world. You really don't understand this concept do you? You have been explained it time after time yet for some reason it won't sink in. Until you get the point it is truly pointless discussing this with you. --WebHamster 19:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries

I prefer to say "Dictionaries tend to define..." rather than "Dictionaries define..." because there is not one universal dictionary definition. The def. given here is a sort of "average", in other words, a tendency. Noloop (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

To start an article with "Dictionaries tend to define..." is not good. How about this: Anti-Americanism, often anti-American sentiment, is often defined as a widespread opposition or hostility to the people, government or policies of the United States. AdjustShift (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

What "you prefer" is irrelevant. The statement is backed up by the dictionary as a reference. The reference is there should the reader wish to see where the statement comes from. As the reference is there then there is no reason to be explicit about it. This is what references are for, ie to give the reader extra info should he/she wish to see it. It seems you wish to force that info on them regardless of what they want. --WebHamster 19:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to not compromise over this. So let Nollop have this, and maybe he might be more inclined to compromise over other issues.Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

All that does is teach him the wrong way to edit. He already has enough incorrect theories about how things are done here without allowing to think he's right when he's wrong. --WebHamster 19:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism in Israel

has been increasing swiftly in the past few months, ever since the 2008 Presidential Election; "birther" conspiracy theories also seem to be popular there, due to the fact that Orly Taitz has visited the country since the election and promoted these ideas. I noticed there is no mention of this in the article, though. It might be worth adding; it should not be very hard to find a source. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it will be very hard to find a source that says that this (like one or two other elemsnts of this article) are about anti-americansim, but by all means inclused it if you can find a soource that says thats the reason.Slatersteven (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

UK

Are these polls about anti-americanism, it seesm to be that the source makes no mention of this. Pew Global Attitudes Project poll clealry makes the link but the Populus poll for The Times does not, niether does The Guardian poll. So I susgest that these two (and the claim they support) are removed from the article.Slatersteven (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Guiding Principles

1. The article shouldn't call things "Anti-American." That is a politicized opinion. We can report the fact that some important source (not random AP staff reporters) have that opinion, but not report the opinion as fact. Note what this article itself says about its own subject:

• "the nature and applicability of the term is often disputed."
• "critics sometimes argue the label is a propaganda term that is used to dismiss any censure of the United States as irrational"
• "Discussions on anti-Americanism have in most cases lacked a precise definition of what the sentiment entails, which has led to the term being used broadly and in an impressionistic manner, resulting in an incoherent nature in the many expressions described as anti-American."
• "American academic Noam Chomsky... asserts that the use of the term within the U.S. has parallels with methods employed by totalitarian states or military dictatorships; he compares the term to "anti-Sovietism", a label used by the Kremlin to suppress dissident or critical thought, for instance"
• "...criticisms of the United States are labeled "anti-American" by supporters of U.S. policies in an ideological bid to discredit their opponents."

2. The article is a classic example of WP:systemic bias. How many Middle Easterners contributed to the section on the Middle East? Every English-speaking country is a staunch ally of the US and shares a common culture with it. The editors here need to be aware that how an event is reported and shaped in their own culture is probably very different from how it is reported in, say, Iran. And not turn the assumptions and views of their own culture into statements of fact. The main problem with the article is the section that surveys anti-Americanism in other cultures. Is it just a coincidence that the only mention of any English-speaking culture in the entire section is about 3 sentences (regarding Britain)?

3. This article shouldn't be a long, indiscriminate list of anything that has ever been described with the adjective "anti-American" in any source. Right now, it has sources that use "anti-American" once as an adjective somehwere in a report of some event. That violates WP:WEIGHT Noloop (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional comment: My feeling is that the proper, neutral way to proceed is to 1) Define the debates swirling around the concept. The opening sections do a good job of that. 2) Restrict the giving of examples to a few cases that have been discussed by other sources with anti-Americanism as the primary topic. If we go around googling for every passing mention of "anti-Americanism" we will violate WP:WEIGHT. We would also obviously promote certain (mainstream Westernized) applications of the term, after we've said there is great debate about the application of the term. We don't need to tell readers that 9/11 was anti-American. We inform the readers of key aspects of the concept, and let them decide for themselves what to consider anti-American. Noloop (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This page is about anti-americanism, that is to say what people think is anti-american, it is about opinions so should include them. It should also operate by the principles of RS which it does. I disagree with the above idea. This article is about what people percvie as anti_american not what is.Slatersteven (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like Noloop wants to replace the concept of WP:RS with WP:WHATNOLOOPSAYSDREAMSTHINKS. Clearly that is not the way to go here and at other articles. Pantherskin (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I just got back here from a random link. Small world. Abce2|TalkSign 05:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

L'Effroyable imposture

Niether source says this book is motivated by Anti-americanism, so unless sources can be found to back up the assertion it sould be removed as an example. this again seems to be an example of something an edd thought was anti-america.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

nice work

Did not read the article in detail, but it looks much better than a year ago. Thanks to everyone for saving the article. Igor Berger (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms were levied due to American vetoes against removing sanctions against Iraq which even American UN officials were describing as "genocidal", and other international incidents.

The only source is about chinese complaints about the bombing of their embasey. No mention that I can find osd anti-americanism. this should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

France

The latest addition to the europe section seem riddeled with weazel words, and conjecture. Also the source sdoes not seem to back up most of the passage (it seems to only partialy back up the last line). I propose that this passage is removed untill better sources can be found.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, there are no Weasel words in this particular sentence. Please refrain from vandalism temptation when some articles do not please you.

The best way to act in this situation definitely is to find your own reliable sources to improve the content. Good luck.--Environnement2100 (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"dented the love story" was it a love story? "which cannot exactly be called anti-Americanism" then if its not anti-Americanism why is in here? "alleged weapons of mass destruction affair" what does this mean? that there were allegation of WMD or that there is an allegation of an affair? "certainly dirtied the previously favorable image" this was the favourable image dented by Suez? "the subprime crisis certainly did not improve the situation" We don't need to know about lack of inprovment but about degredation. Vandalim is also the addition or poorfley sourced and worded content.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Canada

The section on Anti-Americanism, or perceived Anti-Americanism in Canada needs to be totally scraped and revamped. First of all since when is an opinion piece considered appropriate to cite?? The article makes EXTREMELY vague and ignorant generalizations about Canada and Canadians, probably the worst of all being that "many Canadians were known to state that America had gotten it's just desert on 9/11". How about some statistics or reliable facts to back up an absurd accusation like that?

Let's not forget about the IMMEDIATE and FORTHRIGHT assistance delivered to the United States, from Canada after 9/11 or Canada's lengthy and blood soaked military contribution to the war actually resulting from 9/11 (i.e. Afghanistan).

Yes we do commonly draw comparisons between ourselves and our American neighbours, it's to be expected when a nation of 34 million shares the world's longest border with a nation of more than 300 million. In the minds of many Canadians this constant comparison can lead to occasional paranoia (not exactly dangerous xenophobia) and I would argue that the majority of Canadians do equate our social programs, multiculturalism and rather socially progressive Charter with Canadian values. Hence attacks or perceived attacks on those institutions, usually by right-of-centre or centre-right Canadian politicians can be seen as attempted "Americanization" and are usually unwelcome by most. Still that does not justify the generalization that Canadians define ourselves by this sense of insecurity, or that we don't look inward (toward our own nation, our history and our cultural traditions) to get a sense of who we are.

To be frankly honest in the run up to the invasion of Iraq I was offended by the American rightwing pundits (and our then U.S. ambassador, Paul Culleci) having the gaul to question Canada's loyalty toward our American ally. Of course the Bush administration drew a wedge between Canada and the U.S. Aside from the unlawful beef ban, there were illegal tarrifs on Canadian softwood lumber (an issue never properly resolved), a tightening border and obvious differences in foreign policy. Particularly the illegal and equally wrong invasion of Iraq.

Canadians were very much in their rights to oppose American foreign policy during this time period and the majority did, as the author of that opinion piece noted. But opposition to a government's policies and actual xenophobia toward a people or nation are two very different things. The latter never had a strong following amongst Canadians, quite the contrary. The vast and quick improvement in general Canadian perceptions of our neighbour to the south since the election of Barack Obama is testament to that fact. Is everything okay now? No. Are there areas were we disagree? Of course.

But save for some unforseeable and horrifying change in the dynamics of our relationship Canadians and Americans will always have a positive opinion of one another.

- Chris Gilmore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.55.244 (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it may be an opinion pice, and as such I shall attribute it.Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The section is a joke. The "source" is an opinion piece written by "an American medical sociologist living in Toronto". It is not a RS for anything but the opinion of this Nora Jacobson, and frankly her opinion is not notable in any way. The section needs proper sources or it will be deleted. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Then allow time for sources to be found, we do not all what to spend 24 hours a day on Wiki.Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry I will give it a week. But I seriously doubt that you will be able to find any sources for the claims as they are currently worded in that section. The second source that you just added is also an opinion piece, and although this Jonathan Kay may be more notable I still do not see any relevance here, as it can only be used to source that Jonathan Kay thinks Canada is anti-american. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it needs work, and I have this to look thru [[1]]. It seems far better as a source for anti-ameriacnsim in Canada.But I would also say that as much of this article consists of opinions its rather hard to dismiss opinions, un less we go thru the whole article removing all opinion peices. Well thats gone some way to adress the issue of using opinion peices, but there is still work to do.Slatersteven (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is another academic source: [2]. Two of the editorials quoted in the WP article effectively accuse Canadians who oppose US policies as being anti-American while the article by an American living in Canada is really just a personal reflection. The section does not point out that anti-Americanism is weaker in Canada than in most nations, does not explain its historical development and does not explain its differences in French and English Canada. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Zolf is yet another commentator/columnist, that is to say the source is yet another opinion-piece. And what on Earth is "Canadian (at first glance) seems as likely as other to embrace characteristics that are characterised as anti-American." or "It has been suggested that the Anti-Americanism found in Canada had unique qualities. No where else has it been so entrenched for so long, nor so central to the political culture of Canada" supposed to mean? You contribute no sources to back this up and the wording is definitely not encyclopedic. I have also reworded the section that uses the Thompson/Randall book, because "anecdotal evidence" must be considered their personal opinion on the subject. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Opinions can be used in an articel as long as they are attributed (these are). The lines you question are from a source (the book I linked from google books).Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

While it is fine to include opinions, WP:Weight says: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Larry Zolf is not an expert, is no longer well known, and was known for controversial statements. It should be kept in mind too that many Canadian supporters of American government policy accuse their opponents of Anti-Americanism. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

And he is being used soley as an example of an opinion, not as a source for that opipion being true. I agree that all sides should be represented, and by all means add caveates (though the articel makes it clear that the term is used in the way you descibe more generaly, and it might make the article very unwieldy if we include in every section a (but its an accusation) caveat)).Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no justification for giving undue weight to these opinions. Larry Zolf also thinks that all schools (including Jewish schools) should teach and respect the Lord's prayer[3], but that does not mean you should add a quote from him in every Wikipedia article about education and religion. I have tagged the section as POV. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

He has one mention (in a baraketed sentnace, used as an example) hardley a kestone of the section. Also he does appear to be a political commentator, and journo. Now if he was the bed rock of the section yes he would be undue, he is not, he is not even a cornerstone. For example what happens if we remove his statemnt, no significant change to the basic text.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) When writing this article, you must assume that the reader is unaware of the subject (which might be the reason they are reading the article). When they get to the section on Canada, they see a picture of the World Trade Center on fire, then read: "anti-Americanism is a core part of the Canadian identity since Day One of this country". Later they read, "Cultural anti-Americanism in the Middle East may have its origins with Sayyid Qutb". In case they miss the connection, the Canadian section says that "many Canadians say that Americans had finally gotten what they deserved". The Four Deuces (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Then re-format the page so the photo is not next to (though only the bottom half is, and is clarly linked to the section above (about the 11/9 attacks)). They also, "then read" 'Brendon O'Connor & Martin Griffiths in their book Anti-Americanism: Comparative perspectives have said that Canadians (at first glance) seems as likely as other to embrace characteristics that are characterised as anti-American.', that is the line imidiatly next to the photo. I was not aware that the line about "Cultural anti-Americanism in the Middle East may have its origins with Sayyid Qutb" was in the Canada section, if is is feel free to remove it, if not then what ther artciel goes on to say in another section is not relevant unless there is a direct link made in the article. Now its true that the section say that "many Canadians say that Americans had finally gotten what they deserved", but again nunless there is a link between this tio either the photo or the line about arabs what is your point (other then perhpas Ms Jackobsons opnionions can be trimed as I would agree that hter might be undue here).|Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Another problem in connection to this is that anti-americanism is a subjective and poorly defined term. Therefore it is important that you avoid statements like "It has been said that Canadian anti-Americanism...", but instead state who has said it each and every time. Especially since most (if not all) the sources of this section are opinion pieces (read the preface to the O'Connor Anti-Americanism book pp. vii-viii from "Secondly, many of the essays in this series put forward political arguments ...etc"), so the reader has to be informed that it is not peer-reviewed facts but merely the opinions of the various authors. I agree with The Four Deuces that the selection of sources is still slanted politically, so the POV-template is still needed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been suggested that the Anti-Americanism found in Canada had unique qualities, no where else has it been so entrenched for so long, nor so central to the political culture of Canada was an attempt tp try and present neutral wordinbg from the [[4]] source. By the way most of this articel is opinion, I hope that we can now start to add these caveats to every comment.Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm at work so I can't test this myself, but are all the sources for this section American? Because I know for a fact that Canada's particular form of anti-American culture is professionally discussed by a fair amount of people north of the border as well. It shouldn't be too hard to source them. Next time I'm online at home I'll try to find some. -Tainted Conformity ^Chat 02:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

War

Do people think that declaring war on the Americans and trying to kill them is anti-American? Logically if the slogan "Death to America" is anti-American, then actually deliberately killing Americans is also? War is a token of and generates anti feelings. Anti-Americanism is not just talk, sometimes it manifests itself as action. See the word "action" in the intro:

"a broad range of attitudes and actions critical of or opposed to the United States have been labeled anti-Americanism."

I think I'm right that people who enter the USA are required to state whether they want to take up arms against the USA as a marker of their possible negative attitude towards it. Colin4C (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

if you mean do we inclide all wars that are against the US then I would haved to say no. If an attack or war is specifcaly started because of fundemental opposition, and hatred, to the USA (such as the 11/9 attacks) then the Answer would be yes. But if a war is started for m0ore pragmatic reasons (such as treaty obligation or real politic) the answer is no. Moreover the article is about what people have asserted is Anti-americanism, so you would have to provide an RS tjhat a given war was a specific example of Anti-Americansim. For example Project “Prufstand XII" (the Germans attempt to build a rocket to attack New York) was instigated in 1943, after a year of war with the US. Thus whilst its target was Americans it was the result of war, not of a desire to kill Americans (other then the natural desire in war time to kill the enemy). What it was not is an example pf anti-americamism (the hatred of America because its America). Slatersteven (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd disagree that war, or products from a war can be used as examples of anti-Americanisms. A product of war is a means to end a particular conflict on favourable terms to a particular party, and is not a specific example of hatred or negative sentiment towards that country. It would be different if the plan was designed as an act of terrorism, or with genocidal intent. I understand the argument that civilian targets could be construed as anti-Americanism, however only as much as incendiary attacks against Tokyo (killing over 100,000 civilians), and the Hiroshima/Nagasaki were racially motivated. It'd be a different story if a particular source labelled Project Prufstand XII as anti-American. Iciac (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hitler thought that America was part of a world wide Jewish (capitalist+Bolshevik) conspiracy against Germany, therefore wanted to destroy it. The war was an attempted implementation of his anti-American ideology. Admitedlly he didn't get far with this, due to getting unstuck in Russia, but his ultimate plan was to build a a fleet of super warships and take America on in a bid for world domination. As Nazi atrocities in Russia show, and as the Holocaust shows, Hitler was not fighting a "normal war" but a strange, ultra-brutal, ideological war, including against phantoms of his own imagination, i.e. the "world-wide Jewish conspiracy". America represented most of the things that Hitler the Nazi didn't like: Jews, democracy, cosmopolitan modernity, black inspired music like Jazz, racial mixing etc etc. As the terrible events in WW2 showed, Hitler was not just an idle ranter but prepared to implement his words with military means such as war, therefore I think it important to show how his wars dovetailed with his ideology. At least mention them! Colin4C (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hitler did not declare war on the USA untill after Japans attack on the USA. In fact he had reason to declare war on the USA before this (after all they were aiding the British) but did not (the first arms arrived in 1940, well before Hitlers Roseavelt speach). Moreover we are talkinig about the USA not Russia, is there any evidance that American POW's were singled out for poor treatment (like Russian ones)? Is there any evidacen that before December 1041 Hitler showed, any Anti-American (rather then anti-Jew, anti-Black) attitudes? Hitler saw much to admire in 18th- and 19th-century America, he praised the country's pre-1940s pro-White racial policies, its restrictions on non-White immigration, and its pioneering adoption of eugenics measures. But Hitler also saw ominous trends during the 1920s and 1930s. Echoing the views of American industrialist Henry Ford, he was dismayed by the spectacular growth of Jewish power and cultural influence, and regarded Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" administration as a virtual revolution in American life, through which Jews largely usurped the country's traditional ruling class. Hitler did not hate the USA As such, anti_americanism was not the driving force behind WW2 (that was larlgey anti-Slavism, and pan-Geramanism), Nor was it rhe reason he dsclared war on the USA.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

redirect it (to here) from Americophobia

can someone do it. --94.70.70.221 (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Bad Quotation?

Is this quote right - I don't have the source, but I don't think the grammar is right. "the belief that what underlies all U.S. actions is a desire to take over or remake the world"

The grammar is fine, the orthography is a bit lacking, in not having a capitalised T, for "The belief", and there being not full stop at the end. --Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 18:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also see WP:QUOTE, WP:BURDEN ("All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." and WP:MOS#Quotations (note Minimal change in that last one). I note that this source attributes that quotation (with the supplied orthography) to Rubin, Barry and Judith Colp Rubin. 2004. "Anti-Americanism Re-Examined." The BrownJournal of World Affairs 10(2): 17-24. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Police state?

Quite a lot of anti-governmental statements in USA have been declared by media as anti-american. Is there necessity to add new section or United States should be expanded instead (possibly by adding subsection)? I'm in doubt, since quite a lot of critiques calling USA a police state are made by foreigners visiting USA and therefore may warrant section separate from United States.--Red-fox.lv (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Where the source makes it clear it not a US citizen saying this then it should be in the appropriate location. But it would have to be demonstrated that this was the case.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

China and India

You devote whole sections to France and Canada but you fail to do the same to describe the specific status of the topic in 2 countries that represent 40% of humanity (well over one half if we consider their area of influence as cultures and civilizations)... and I can promise there is plenty of relevant material. China isn't even named. India is named once in the name of a source (!). From the absence of remarks on these two quasi-continental realities in the article, it may seem that Chinese and Indians feed only warm feelings of grateful love towards the USA. Unfortunately direct experience says it is not the case... Maybe France and Canada, as smaller allies, are funky and reassuring examples to purport here, rather than the big white nuclear elephants... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.27.210 (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Anti-American(Exceptional)ism?

There is anti-Communism, Anti-Nazism and anti-Sovietism, and your Americanism page links to the gracious idea of American exceptionalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism .. Maybe among the other meanings proposed, a defensible semantic exegesis of Anti-Americanism could be of it is "as pondered, secular and multilateral foreign opposition to the idea that the United States are blessed with a superior destiny or chosen by God (as seen i Americanism as American Exceptionalism)". otice also the well-rooted concepts of "Un-American" and "Socialist" as insult, for which if one US citizen does like Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal (dissent and critique ) he is a traitor, a loser, a fringe position etc. There is a quote of Chomsky about this but the article doesn't develop the quote in propositive form to give to Ant-.Amer. a different meaning (it is not original research).

Half of the article talks about ludicrous racial/ geographical ideas of intellectuals of around 1700, presenting the "critics" as clueless idiots...it is like if we spend 50% of the article about Evolution quoting the Creationists who forbid Darwin teachings invarious US States. Most of this article seems to indicate that all critics want to prove that Americans are inferior beings, while maybe a relevant amout of those critics would rather like to stress that Americans, albeit a superpower, aren't superhumans (notion proclaimed and promoted in quite overt form by NeoCons and American Exceptionalism, well known and existing forces). In other words the Anti- could be not just a form of nasty envy against a country or its freedom, but a form of quite fair opposition against an excess (exceptionalism) and its degenerations.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.27.210 (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The point about the historical sections is in demonstrating that anti-Americanism has been a continuing discourse since the very beginning of America's history. This discourse provides the frame in which anti-Americanism is articulated, on the many occasions that people do so. There are, no-doubt, valid reasons for being (or not being) anti-American, but that is not the point of this article. The anti-American discourse exists and whether it is valid or not, it is a very well established fact that people do continually slag off America and at great length. And please sign your name! Colin4C (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "slagging off America" is not an encyclopedic topic in itself, but that is, in fact, pretty much all this article is about. There is no real connection between the parts that makes a whole. Noloop (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah...you are back...Please note all the scores of books about Anti-Americanism in the refs and about its connected history. See for instance: Rubin and Rubin (2004). Hating America: A History. Oxford University Press. Are you saying that the history of anti-Americanism is not discussed in these books and that they are about something else ? If so please provide refs as assertions by editors that "there is no such thing as such-and-such" without providing references is classed as original research and is not allowed as a justification for mass deletions of referenced material on the wikipedia. Colin4C (talk) 07:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I am saying, essentially, what this article says at it's beginning, that this topic is poorly defined and pretty much includes any criticism or dislike of any aspect of the USA: government, culture, individuals, demographics, corporations, etc. This is what you implied when you summarized the criteria for inclusion as "slagging off America." We couldn't have an article dedicated to "slagging off America" also named that, so instead we have an article dedicated to that topic, but named something that looks more formally defined (but isn't). Noloop (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about either. Are you talking about this article or the subject itself??? Please note also that the wikipedia not a dictionary devoted to formal definitions but an encyclopedia. If you think that this is a non-subject how do you explain why Anti-Americanism: History, Causes, Themes. Volume 1. (2007), edited by Brendon O' Connor is over 1400 pages long? 1400 pages is rather a lot of words to expend on a non-subject which (on your view) it is impossible to have even one article dedicated to...Colin4C (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

American exceptionalism is the theory that the US developed differently from other nations because it had no feudal past and does not imply superiority. I think IP may be confusing the concept with Manifest Destiny. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the introduction should be more concise, something like: "Anti-americanism or Americophobia is a phenomenon that exists at a global scale, that consists in the aversion to the United States as a whole or to the American culture. The term can also be used in reference to the rejection of Americanism as a political doctrine." The current introduction questions the existance of the concept, it is unquestionable that the phenomenon exists. 88.27.183.21 (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The current intro does not question that it exists, it only states that it is disputed what it consists of and what should be included in the term. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to add as a bit of background to the discussions here, that, if you look at the history of this page you will see that there is a banned user called Bsharvy User:Bsharvy who constantly pops up here in a variety of sock-puppet guises, who believes that there is no such thing as anti-Americanism and uses every opportunity to delete large amounts of this article, engage in edit wars and try to get banned those who disagree with him. He tried to get this article deleted about 2 or 3 years ago and was so dissapointed that it wasn't that he assumed a variety of sock puppet guises to wreck the article and get those who defend it blocked and banned. Though in the end his sock-puppets usually go too far, crash, burn and are found out, it is not before they have inflicted severe damage on the article and caused major infighting amongst the existing editors. When his latest sock-puppet guise is discovered Bsharvy usually immediately re-constitutes himself as another sock and starts more arguments here...I think one of his socks is operating here now, but as I'm not 100% certain it is him, will bide my time before naming him. Colin4C (talk) 08:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The term anti-Americanism is never used in reference to the rejection of Americanism as a political doctrine." The Four Deuces (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should have said the American exceptionalism, not Americanism. It is unquestionable that American exceptionalism is a political doctrine, that says that the United States is superior to any other country because of some reason (ex: God), and that therefore everyone should comply to what the USA says or wants. Anti-Americanism is often used as a rejection to cultural imperialism that derives from that. 88.27.183.21 (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

American exceptionalism is not a political doctrine but a theory in social science. America is seen as a liberal fragment of Europe and since it did not have a feudal past as an influence in politics or society the country experienced rapid growth through capitalism, although also a lack of social cohesion. According to the theory Americans share an ideology called "Americanism". The Four Deuces (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Some POV

• Korean anti-Americanism after the war was fueled by American occupation and support for authoritarian rule, a fact still evident during the country's democratic transition in the 1980s.[5]

The source is newspaper, and its article date is 1987. already 23 years ago. it is not work in nowdays.

• Such anti-Americanism is reflected in Korean popular culture....

This edit is confusing. First, POV editor using 1987 years source, and later described as it relation with moderndays movie. And 'the host' movie is not a real Anti-Americanism movie. Only very first intro part is controvercial.

Fucking USA song written by one pro north korean activist, his song is not reflect to any Korean's view of US.

Apolo Ohno Olympic controversy caused by 'dirty play'. It is not a anti-america. Ohno's play was problem. not all america.

--660gd4qo (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your removing the link to Anti-American sentiment in Korea was POV also. The wikipedia would be a valuable knowledge resource if editor's didn't just whimsically delete stuff which doesn't suit their personal POV. Colin4C (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Trying to move this forward. There may be a case for properly sourced material that covers the current state of affairs, as a couple of sentences at most. This is not an article about the relationship between South Korea and American, it is an article about anti-americanism and there are referenced cases of that in South Korea that cannot be airbrushed away --Snowded ^TALK 09:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

his only concercn is Anti-American sentiment in Korea link. So, we reach at agreement. btw, Don't delete pew research survey and taiwan case. 1987 old news paper article is pretty weak as source. The edit depict as current event.660gd4qo (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see his agreement to that statement here, he just makes the point that you were POV in making that change. You are now edit warring. I strongly suggest you self revert and discuss your changes here, otherwise you will simply end up with a block. --Snowded ^TALK 09:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

you will simply end up with a block. You threat me? This discussion is going on. However, he did not point out why he deleted pew reseach survey, taiwan cases. Any reason? even it is not POV.(pew resaech is pretty trusted source) It seems like a he did not know this topic. 660gd4qo (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You are not discussing your changes, you are edit waring. If your edits are reverted by another editor then you discuss the changes here you don't simply insert them again. You have not addressed the suggestion I made above. Please self-revert and propose changes here. --Snowded ^TALK 09:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Excue me. You are also edit waring. This is not a POV or edit waring. The last edit is not simply reverting as you think. It change little by little. his only concercn is Anti-American sentiment in Korea link. And i add it. 660gd4qo (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

And if this is a content dispute, he must provide counter part evidence, too. Not simply delete all my edit. and he need provide reason why deleted pew research survey and taiwan case. 660gd4qo (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I have restored the stable version per WP:BRD. You are making an assumption that the other editors only concern is one link, s/he does not say that above. You are also not responding to my point that this is not an article about American-South Korean relationships. Please do so (and self revert while you are at it). Even if its a content dispute, it has to be discussed here. When other editors object to your edits you need to follow the rules, not simply change the article again --Snowded ^TALK 10:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"When other editors object to your edits you need to follow the rules, not simply change the article again" Yes, this is what i saying. "When other editors (me) object to your edits (Colin4C) you need to follow the rules, not simply change the article again" Excuse me. I did not revert to only my version. I reverted to Colin4C's 08:43, 17 April 2010 edit version. Again, I did not revery to my version. After He deleted all my edit without any reason, so i object to it. I want know why he deleted pew research survey, Korea gallup poll and taiwan case.660gd4qo (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You persist in not answering the questions. I have checked your references, one is to a Korean language site and cannot be checked, the one to the Pew research produces a blank page. Investigation of that shows a chart in which Korea shows a 78% favorable response. You are verging on WP:OR and {{WP:SYNTH]] here. Given your lack of engagement I have restored the original text which is referenced and dates (it makes no claim beyond the 1980s). However I have added a sentence using the Pew data to make it clear that a majority of South Koreans have a favorable view. I suggest you live with that or PROPOSE CHANGES HERE. If you restore your material then you risk a 3RR report. Aside from leaving the reference to anti-americanism in North Korean your only other changes were to improve the english. --Snowded ^TALK 10:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If you questioned my sources, keep going discuss at here. not remove refereces.

BTW, Pew research survey, Korean gallup poll are not my original research.

"If you restore your material then you risk a 3RR report" I did not revert to only my version. I reverted to Colin4C's 08:43, 17 April 2010 edit version. Last edit is not simply reverting also. Unlike your assumption, I did not violate 3rr rule within 24 hrs. 660gd4qo (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to read up a bit on edit warring. Each revert was to substantially the same material other than changes to improve the english and leaving one reference in place. Using a Korean language source in the English WIkipedia means the material cannot be checked, so that one is out. The Pew research appears OK but I have reflected that in my additional sentence. --Snowded ^TALK 10:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your last revert was to substantially the same material other than changes to improve the english and leaving one reference in place. 660gd4qo (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I restored the bulk of the material which was stable and sourced. I didn't improve the english. In order to deal with your concerns I added in one sentence to make it clear that South Korean attitudes are generally pro-American. In an article about anti-americanism that is enough. THe existing material made its time period clear. --Snowded ^TALK 10:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not judge of article. I will edit including both side version. BTW, Non-English sources are acceptable wikipedia. Eveybody happy version is good to end. 660gd4qo (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No editor is a judge, and that includes you. The default in the event of a dispute is the current version. To make it very clear, if you reinsert disputed material before achieving consensus here then you will be reported for a violation of 3RR --Snowded ^TALK 10:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, 1987 NY times newspaper is simly outdated source. It was past event. and it does not reflect to current situation. And one single 1987 NY times news paper article is hardly regard as wide view. 660gd4qo (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It supports a statement about anti-americanism in the 1980s so its more than valid, it makes no claim about the current state. I have left a final warning on your talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 10:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, don't threat other editor. It was not a 3rr vio as your assumption. I really hope we need agreement of edit. I really oppose your edit stance (DELETE ALL). At least, My edit including both side unlike you.

Using 23 years ago source, and it depict as current event. At least, it need "This is 23 years ago past event" explain.

"anti-Americanism existed in Korean Popular culure." This is simply wrong POV. only 1 movie and 1 song are not reflect to all Korean Popular culure. Also, Fucking USA song is not POPULAR culture as previous edit. That was minor song, It was indy music. Even that song Was not ranked any single Korean music chart or known in Korean newspaper. It is really hard to says it was "Popular culure". I point out inaccurated edit. 660gd4qo (talk) 10:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

odI'm making some allowance for the fact that english is evidentially not your first language.

• The original and stable text says that "Korean anti-Americanism after the war was fueled by .... still evident during the country's democratic transition in the 1980s". Was is the past tense in English, and the quote makes it clear its the 1980s. It is therefore not an outdated source and does not need qualification.
• Popular culture means things like songs and films
• You have yet to address the point that this is an article about anti-americanism, not about South-Korean USA relationships

You are at least discussing changes, however you should be doing this here, and not editing the article directly while the discussion continues. You are on 4RR, again please self-revert your last change and gain consensus here. --Snowded ^TALK 11:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

As this article is about historical as well as curretn anit-Americanism there is no valid resaon I can see for this statments inclusion. There is a bit more of a valid popint over music. if it is indead only ever been a single song and one film that may be undue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with this: " it is an article about anti-americanism and there are referenced cases of that in South Korea" No, there are not "referenced cases of that." Saying something is anti-American is a politicized opinion, and not a statement of fact. There can be referenced cases of things being seen as anti-American, that's all. Noloop (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Esse est percipi. But that applies to everything. Colin4C (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't apply to everything according to your cite, or to Wikipedia. Wikipedia (which is what matters here) has guidelines regarding what should be presented as factual and what is an interpretation. Saying something is anti-American is an opinion (as this article itself makes clear). There's a lot of subjective opinion and systemic bias in this article. Noloop (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That is just your interpretation. Colin4C (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If an RS says something is anti-americanism then the artciel can say that "X has said that this is an example of anti-americanism.", that is what this articel is about. what is eprcvied to be anti-amierican sentimant.Slatersteven (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, as far as it goes. Noloop said, "Saying something is anti-American is a politicized opinion, and not a statement of fact." You point out that saying "X said that Y is anti-American", citing a supporting source, is making a statement of fact. However, if we report the fact of X's statement of his opinion, we must give due weight to differing opinions. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wtmitchell is correct, and this article certainly doesn't give due weight to different views. I would add that reliable sources are for statements of fact. If we are reporting someone's opinion--such as that something is anti-American--what matters is that the person be significant and the opinion isn't a fringe theory. Much of this article consists of cherry-picking pet-theories that are held by a few scholars. There's little to suggest that much of anything being reported in this article is a consensus opinion of any scholarly community. Noloop (talk) 03:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The its up to those who want 'the other side of the fence' to find those views. Balance does not mean leave material out if we can only find one side of the argument. This article is about what is percived (not what is agrred as being) anti-americanism, it does not matter if one political pundit (as long as he is inprotant enough) or 1000 make the accusation. Any more then if a major public figure makes a racist remark, its notable. Having said this if you have any concreans about material in this articel then raise it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. It matters whether a theory is held by a dinky minority, or is a consensus view. Assuming there are, say, 50,000 historians in the world, finding two to say that 16th century France was anti-American isn't very relevant. And you are wrong about balance: if you knowingly create an unbalanced article, you knowingly create a biased one. This article is distorted, full of cherry-picked pet theories, and biased. Noloop (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly please refrain from accusing users of acting in bad faith. Secondsly we do not need a theory to be a consensus theory to have it in the artciel, we just need it to be held by either notable peresons who might nbe seen to have knowledge on the subject or by a large enough minority to be signifiicant. Thirdly when creating an articel you should reelct all view popints, but it is down to others as well to add material they think should be there as well. Now if you have material you think should be in the articel add it, if you do not have such material then please stop asking for it to be included.

As to 16thC France, I agree it seems an odd example, but they seem well sourced from accademics. Also as yert you have provided no evidance that this is a fringe theory or minority view.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Other sources for 16thC French anti-Americamnism.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=52o86uUBRRsC&pg=PA102&dq=prehistory+of+anti-Americanism&hl=en&ei=so4HTPHKGNeS4gax0I2gAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=prehistory%20of%20anti-Americanism&f=false This seems to repeat the material on the page.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R8Z200sQYnoC&pg=PA1&dq=prehistory+of+anti-Americanism&hl=en&ei=W48HTIypFMmv4QaCnslw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=prehistory%20of%20anti-Americanism&f=false It discuses the same material, but is clealry not the same source.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dHcQd4xlniAC&pg=PA16&dq=prehistory+of+anti-Americanism&hl=en&ei=IZAHTIrcNsGK4QaJv5GlAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=prehistory%20of%20anti-Americanism&f=false This discuses Mr Ceasers work.

It is clear that this theory has recived rather more coverage then two historians, it appears to have been discused and to have found its way out into the wider field of Anti-American studies. It may be a minority view (but no evidance has been produced to support this) but it (would not appear) to a a fringe view.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't accuse of you acting in bad faith. I said you were mistaken, which is exactly what you are saying about me. However, comments like that do reinforce the impression of you as a troll. Ditto, regarding your tendency to type incomprehensible comments without bothering to correct typos, misspellings, grammar, etc., and with little or no logic or accuracy. For example, the citations you give above as showing "rather more coverage than two historians" are based on exactly the theories of two historians, which are exactly the same two historians used in this article. Noloop (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"if you knowingly create an unbalanced article, you knowingly create a biased one. This article is distorted, full of cherry-picked pet theories, and biased." You are therfore stating that this articel was created in bad faith, you may not have been accusing me but that is irrelavant you are assuming bad faith. Also its rather rude to attack someones bad writing style and I would ask you to stop (there may be reasons for all you know as to why my spelling is bad).

It does not matter if the sources are disscuing the theorys or adding new material it has not only been discused by two historians. That is the differnace between a fringe theory and a mainstream one, the amount of coverage it recives from other accademics. Coverage means people give it coverage, not that they add to it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As concearns have been raised that this is a fringe theory I have taken it the the appropriate notice board [[6]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

1) The article is biased, full of cherry-picked pet theories with little attention to due weight, and 2) I'm not accusing anyone of acting in bad faith (except now, perhaps, you, since I suspect you of trolling). The principle of Wikipedia is to assume good faith as a default, not to assume it when there is evidence to the contrary. Noloop (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Nollop - Slatersteven is not a troll. Please withdraw that statement NOW. Personal attacks, vendettas and bullying ARE NOT ALLOWED on the wikipedia. You are welcome to dispute points of fact or interpretation - that is every editor's right. Personal attacks are despicable and a sign that the editor has no rational argument. Please apologise for your unwarranted attack on Slatersteven NOW and we MIGHT listen to your RATIONAL arguments. Colin4C (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This

Nollop - The "this" in the second sentence refers to the first sentence, i.e. Hitler's order to exterminate the Jews: the Holocaust:

"Within days of this address Hitler ordered the complete extermination of the Jews: the Holocaust.[36] According to Saul Friedlander this was because Hitler imagined that he was now at war with a Jewish World Conspiracy fronted by communist Russia on the one hand and capitalist America on the other."

Both sentences are referenced to Friedlander. Cutting out one sentence and leaving the other one destroys the sense. Wikipedia entries should make sense, therefore do not delete the first sentence. To make things clear to you I have given the Friedlander reference for both sentences. Though divided into two sentences, both sentences are part of one thought - of Friedlander, which could equally well be expressed as one sentence:

"Within days of this address Hitler ordered the complete extermination of the Jews because he [Hitler] imagined that he [Hitler] was now at war with a Jewish World Conspiracy fronted by communist Russia on the one hand and capitalist America on the other."

Please also note that references to authors are more acceptible than original research by editors of the wikipedia, therefore giving it as your personal opinion that Friedlander is wrong is not relevent. Everything on the wikipedia is mediated through references. Friedlander is one such. Colin4C (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, I fail to follow your reasoning. The Nazis were anti-American, that is why there is a section about them in the article. Please provide refs which refute Friedlandler: TFD (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Friedlander doesn't say the Nazis were anti-American. That is one of the problems with the section. Noloop (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Saul Friedlander

Does anybody disagree with the statement that Saul Friedlander says that the German declaration of war on the USA was due to long-standing anti-American sentiments in Germany? Please support your statement with refs. Please note that original research and folkloric/tabloid/grandmotherly sentiments or statements of alleged "facts" about Hitler and his thoughts and intentions and policies are disallowed on the wikipedia. Please provide refs to books and articles in hard copy or cyber-space. Unreferenced Hitleric folklore is not credible. "Everybody knows that Hitler was blah, blah, blah" is just not up to wikipedia standards. Give refs so that all the editors here can read them and make their judgement. Statements that 100% of the population is absolutely agreed that "everybody knows such-and-such is absolutely true at all times to all people" are just a dismal imposture and bullying. Gives refs as per the wikipedia rules and policy. My refs are Friedlander and Kershaw - what are yours? Please note that statements of the kind that "everybody knows (in my pub) that Hitler only had one ball, other is in the Albert Hall and by the way he was a house painter who had beat Eva Braun with nettles blah, blah, blah- no refs provided are just not credible, The wikipedia is about facts not dumb folklore or prejudice. A reference means providing the name of an author, the book or article they wrote, plus the page numbers. Folklore does not accord with wikipedia standards. The wikipedia is an encyclopedia supported by refs to authors of books or articles - not an editor's fond remembrances of what their grandmother told them about the war. Facts not folklore please - just cos you have believed something since you were two years old is no proof that it is actually true. A lot of what people fondly believe to be absolutely true is the the propaganda-du-jour of journalists and polticians and is not nececessarly true...My refs are Friedlander and Kershaw - what are yours? Ignorance is no excuse - if you are ignorant of the facts and have never read a book in your life (cos you thought it was "uncool" and would rather watch football or whatever) please desist from "contributing" to the wikipedia. Leave it to the uncool, idle (boo, hiss..) boring (albeit diligent) academics...Just cos anybody can contribute anything to the wikipedia does not mean that we should uncomplainingly suffer unreferenced POVeramas or propaganderamas. Colin4C (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the tone of your comments, there is no point in discussing anything with you. You have been nothing but snide. If you aren't willing to be open-minded, you aren't prepared to edit. Noloop (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide quotes for the material you say backs up the contested text. At this time some of this look to be synthasis (fact a is true, fact b is true I therefore claim fact c is true). Also please refrain from attacking other edds.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

USA

United States

Interpretations of anti-Americanism have often been polarized. Anti-Americanism has been described by the American scholar Paul Hollander as "a relentless critical impulse toward American social, economic, and political institutions, traditions, and values."[2]

Globally, increases in perceived anti-American attitudes appear to correlate with particular policies or actions,[118] such as the Vietnam and Iraq[119] wars. For this reason, critics sometimes argue the label is a propaganda term that is used to dismiss any censure of the United States as irrational.[120] Noam Chomsky sees the term as a reflection of a totalitarian mindset that identifies state policy with the country and its culture.[121]

This section has some significant material in my opinion (feel free to disagree), but.... 1. It has nothing to do with the USA. The only connection seems to be that one of sources is American. The second paragraph is explicitly NOT about the USA, begining with the word "Globally...." 2. The first paragraph seems to have been cut up. Its topic is supposed to be the polarization of the term, but it mentions only one of the "poles." 3. Suggest we move this material. Offhand, I thinnk the most relevant material for this section is the Soviet-style use of "anti-Americanism" as propaganda during the McCarthy era to persecute dissidents. Of course, since the dissidents criticized America, the editors here probably think it was perfectly reasonable for government to call them anti-American (and attack them). Noloop (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

it is about anti-Americansim and its apparent growth globaly, the articel is not about the USA but anti-americanism so its wholey relevant to discuse its global growth.

Agreed that we need to have all of the 'poles' mentioned in the lead.

Its the lead and should paraphrae this arctiel, this does that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The dissidents critized the American government, not America, and they were called "unamerican, not anti-American. I do not understand your point about these sources not being about the U. S. Of course they are not - Anti-Americanism is usually an attitude by non-Americans to the U. S. TFD (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you folks actually read this article? The text I excerpted above is in the section titled "United States" which is why the fact that it is not about the United States is a problem. Slatersteven said it's the lead; in fact, it's the end of the article. I really wonder if the people vigorously arguing about this article have examined it thoroughly. It's getting frustrating. Noloop (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, it just read like it should be in the lead to me (So I supidly assumed it was). It seems to be about American critiques, and as such I agree that we do not need to know what non-Americans think in this section (which should perhaps also be rename to American perspectives, or some such).Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I misread Noloop's comments. They do not belong in the U. S. section. Anti-Americanism in the United States is of course a topic, but I do not think there is consensus on what constitutes anti-Americanism in the U. S. TFD (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Labaling

I will admit to disliking the political labaling of commentators on wikipages that are not about them. It smaks of saying 'see this is why they are unreliable, their biased' especialy when its not applied across the articel, on all opinions. But I cannot see what being anti-communishas to do with anything on this page. Conservatism may impact on a persons views about his country but much of the anti_american sentiment coverd in this articel does not come from communists so anti-Communism seem irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletions

Nollop - please do not mass delete referenced relevent material, like you did in your last edit, without getting a concensus to do so here on the talk page. Feel free to give a detailed rationale here on the talk page and see what others have to say about the issue before you mass delete material. Colin4C (talk) 06:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The material I deleted was either unreferenced, wrongly referenced, or irrelevant. The material captioning the image is POV and unreferenced. The material regarding fascist countries misrepresents the source; the source refers to fascist leaders, not what the general public "commonly" believed in those countries. The material about Hitler is fraudulent. The US involvement in WWII was very obviously a result Germany's militarism, and, very obviously, the bombing of Pearl Harbour. To suggest we got involved in WWII because Hitler was anti-American is a bizarre fringe theory. Noloop (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That is blatantly not true. The material is referenced to Friedlander - an authority on the subject. Please supply references rather than giving us original research and your own POV. Your statement that "The US involvement in WWII was very obviously a result Germany's militarism, and, very obviously, the bombing of Pearl Harbour." is original research, not supported by references and is therefore not relevent. According Friedlander Germany declared war on the USA - not the other way around. If you believe differently please supply refs. Colin4C (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It is blatantly true that the material I deleted in the caption is POV and unsourced, which is exactly what I said above. I don't know what the rest of your comment is supposed to address. The US, Japan, and Germany declared war on each other, all within a week or so. The cause was Pearl Harbor, and if you think that is "original research" you are uninformed. The source doesn't say anti-Americanism was widespread in countries under fascist rule, it says the leaders of those countries made anti-American comments. Hence, this article misrepresents the source. Noloop (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The USA declared war on Japan as a result of Pearl Harbour. Germany's declaration of war was a result of treaty obligations, the fact that the USA had been supplying arms to the allies (and some US ships had in fact been sunk by German action before this), it had nothing directly to do with the attack by Japan. The source also claims that German actions were influenced by Anti-Americansim. Its attributed so I cannot see any objection to the claim. The quoted material (Hitlers speech) does seem to be about anti_semitism, not Anti-Americamism, but as its claimed this is what Friedlander says unless youo ccan prove otherwise you must accept that this is what he intends us to think.Slatersteven (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Friedlander Hitler thought that America was part of the Jewish World Conspiracy - Hitler's anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism were intertwined in his thought - but both were real in his mind. Anti-Americanism does not have to be a pure elemental essence unrelated to everything else in the world. Hitler's declaration of war on America is an indication that he didn't love them. If you love someone you do not declare war on them, nor do these things happen by accident - see Hitler's remarks on Roosevelt to see the bad opinion he had of the USA and its policy makers. Btw Hitler had no treaty obligation to declare war on America in support of the Japanese - it was a defensive alliance not an aggressive one. Can supply you with refs for that latter point if you want. Hitler's declaration of war on the USA had more and other and deeper reasons than helping the Japs. See "Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions that Changed the World, 1940-1941" by Ian Kershaw in which he discusses in depth the rationale for Hitler's declaration of war on America. Colin4C (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Fascist" section is not backed by a consensus, a plurality, a significant minority, or a single reliable source who says that WWII was caused by anti-Americanism. That entire section violates basic principles of Wikipedia. The caption text that I removed is POV that is completely unsourced. Noloop (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we need some More sources (and ones that make the possition clearer) that the German declaerarion of war was motivated by anti-americanism (rather then say anti-Semitism). One of the probloms is that Hitler admired some things about America. At the moment we have a lot of material about anti-Semitism, racism (with odd parrales to the dengeneracy thesis). Can we also have the direct quotes from Friedlander linkiing the decleration of war to actual hatred of America please so as to clear up this disagrement.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be better, but we also need to break the pattern of basing entire sections on one person's theory. The fact is, there is no consensus, or majority, or widely-held interpretation of anti-Americanism. We need to stop writing like there is. Noloop (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to show that WWII was caused by anti-Americanism, any more than there is a need to show that it was caused by anti-Semitism or anti-Communism. It is sufficient to show that it was part of the Nazi belief system. TFD (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It is impossible to show that, since perception of anti-Americanism is subjective. If you can show that such an interpretation is widespread, then cite the sources. Currently, the section cites no sources at all that interpret the Nazi belief system as mainly "anti-American," which suggests that it is not a widespread view. Noloop (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Since no on is claiming that Nazism was mainly anti-Amercian, there is no need to provide sources for that. (P. S. - see Strawman argument and avoid using.) TFD (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed: Anti-Americanism was not the reason the Nazis declared war on the US, and anti-Americanism is not an important part of Nazism. The section should be removed. Noloop (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No one said anti-Americanism was an important part of Nazism. In case you were unaware, they hated lots of people. TFD (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Then what is a section on the Nazis doing in this article? That's what we're supposed to be discussing. Please cease these slightly insulting backhanded personal comments and focus on the topic. thanks. Noloop (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

But we still need a source (or at least a quote from the current source, to make it clear) saying that the Nazis were anti-American. That will (I would hope) stop the objection to this section. Such as this [[7]] Now I would ask that instead of asking edds to accept arguments that you prove them. Friedlander's comments aboout the holocaust have no place in an articel about hatred of America, not Jews.Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Can anybody provide references for the above common place statements? According to a man I met in the pub yesterday "Hitler only had one one ball, the other is in the the Albert Hall" - but didn't gives refs. According to common repute Hitler was a "such and such who did such and such" - which things are folklore - to obviate such please provide refs. My refs are Friedlander and Kershaw - what are yours? Please list: Also the (unreferenced) statement that "because the Nazis hated everybody they hated nobody" is illogical. If one hates - say - ice cream it doesn't mean that you love ice cream. Such a statement is an absurd contradiction unworthy of the wikipedia. You could get away with it in a tabloid newspaper but not the wikiipedia. But if I am wrong please provide refs that prove that contradictory statements actually mean their opposite: Colin4C (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an article called "Anti-Americanism in Germany", that includes discussion of Nazi anti-Americanism, in Brendan O'Connor's book Anti-Americanism: Comparative perspectives.[8] TFD (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

On a point of information there is a book by Friedlander called:

"Prelude to downfall: Hitler and the United States 1939 -1941" which might relevent to this discussion. Anybody here read it? I am willing to buy and read this book and discuss it with other editors here in pursuit of unprejudiced info on history. I take it we are are in pursuit of truth here, rather than mass deletion of text which reflects badly on the CIA version of history and the aims of American foreign policy??? Sorry about my "academic" attitude - I am a frequent contributor to hard copy encyclopedias and find it hard to cope with wiki-lawyerism...I guess I am an idealist...always dangerous character to the propagandists...I believe in truth. Colin4C (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the quote that shows that the sources say that the holocaust was an act of anti-Americanism motivates by hatred of America (even in part). Any thing else is synthasis.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

According to wikipedia policy synthesis is allowed on the wikipedia. Be that as it may on page 281 Friedlander says "In the course of two months the Nazi leader had explicitly mentioned the extermination of the Jews on October 19, October 25, December 12, December 17 and December 18 and indirectly quoted to that effect by Goebbels, Rosenberg and Frank between December 12 and 16. Nothing of the kind had ever happened before in Hitler's declarations. Indeed the fact that that five out of seven of these exterminatory statements were made within a few days of December 11, could be seen as a thinly veiled message that conveying that a final decision had been made as a result of American entry into the war". Colin4C (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

No synthasis is not allowed #Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position. Your quoted passage does not say that the holocaust was caused by hated of Ameriaca or ant-Americanism, it just says that it may (not was) a result of Americas entry into the war, it does not explain (or make any claims) about why that should be important in relation to the death camps.Slatersteven (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The Policy says:

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research."

It says nothing about synthesising material on pages X to Z of one source. E.g. Friedlander. The point of the quote is that according to Friedlander when Germany declared war on America, they were also, according to Hitler's demented reasoning, declaring war on one of the principal fronts of the Jewish World Conspiracy, therfore the Holocaust was a logical (in Hitler's mind) corrolary to this declaration of war on the World Jewish Conspiracy. Anti-Americanism was linked to anti-Semitism. Anti-Americanism does not have to be a reductive "Anti-Americanism for the sake of Anti-Americanism". Anti-Americans have always ascribed certain tendencies to the Americans that they hate. "Anti-Americanism for the sake of Anti-Americanism" is just a vacuous tautology. Colin4C (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You can't "imply a conclusion not mentioned by either source." Are you trying to argue this means you can imply a conclusion not mentioned in just one source? Noloop (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Does Friedlander discuse anti-Americanism, does he say Nazi Germany was anti-American? Moreover Friedlander does not claim that "Germany declared war on America, they were also, according to Hitler's demented reasoning, declaring war on one of the principal fronts of the Jewish World Conspiracy" he makes no sucgh statement, that is your interpritation of what he means. Does Friedlander say that Anti-Americanism was linked to anti-Semitism or is tha again your interpritation of the source. According to the rules on OR "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below." the source does not directly and explicitly support the contention that you make, it may susgest it but it may also susgest other interpritations.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

Before placing this tag on the article, an explanation must be given so that editors can discuss this matter. Is the subject matter POV - then list for deletion. Are sections POV - then tag them. And please be specific. Saying that the Nazis were anti-American, whether true or not is not POV, TFD (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying the Nazis were anti-American is, in fact, a point of view. Calling anything anti-American is an interpretation, a POV. But that's not what the tag says. The tag doesn't say the article violates rules about point of view. It says the neutrality is in dispute. And here we are disputing it. And the wider community also disputed it at the fringe theory noticeboard. It is obviously in dispute, hence the tag. It informs readers that Wikipedia's consensus process hasn't been achieved in this article. It doesn't say the article lacks neutrality, merely that it is in dispute. BTW, your edit also undid Slatersteven's edit, as well as the tag (which had been there for several days without being contested). Noloop (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The statement that the Nazis were anti-American appears in high quality reliable sources, viz., peer-reviewed academic journals and books published by university and academic publishing companies. These sources do not publish fringe theories and theories that do not have academic consensus are criticised in the literature. I do not understand what your complaint is. Do you think that Nazis were pro-American or had no opinion about them? TFD (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There is now no question (I have found sources) that say the Nazis were anti-American, but the issue of the holocasut still makes that section POV.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Where are the peer-reviewed articles calling the Nazis anti-American? I'm not sure it matters. Peer-reviewed journals do not turn opinion into fact. You can doubtless find peer-reviewed articles calling the Nazis evil. That doesn't make it encyclopedic to call the Nazis evil. It is completely false that peer-reviewed article always have consensus. There are peer-reviewed right- and left-wing journals. Do right- and left-wing ideas have consensus? This is a political topic. Noloop (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of all this, it is obvious that the neutrality of the article is in dispute. Please don't remove the tag. Noloop (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Nollop, please give detailed reasons why you think that this article is POV: Colin4C (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A List of Bad References, POV statements, etc.: Candidates for Deletion

In Japan and South Korea, objections to the behavior and presence of American military personnel is sometimes reported as anti-Americanism, such as the 1995 Okinawan rape incident.[58][59] The ongoing U.S. military presence in Okinawa remains a contentious issue in Japan.[60]

The references for this text need to document significant and somewhat consistent reports of anti-Americanism. [58] makes no mention of AA. [59] is a single article which documents that such a report was been made once regarding a single incident. [60] makes no mention of anti-Americanism. This article is is seriously Anglo-biased and full of bogusly referenced and unreferenced POV. Noloop (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"The United States hastens the delivery of arms to the puppet governments they see as being increasingly threatened; it makes them sign pacts of dependence to legally facilitate the shipment of instruments of repression and death and of troops to use them." — Che Guevara, April 9, 1961 [96]

The only reason this is in the article is that some Wikipedia editor thinks it's anti-Americanism. It is promoting a POV to leave it there as it stands. It is also a reasonable description of the US policy in Latin America at that time, one held by many academics, not a fringe theory, and not fairly characterized as based in prejudice. Noloop (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because American government policies are correct and supported by academics and any opposition to them is fringe, does not mean that some people oppose them and their views may be termed anti-American. Do you think that it is a fringe theory to say that Osama bin Laden is anti-American? TFD (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If a souce does not claimk an act or attitude is anti-american then its synthasts for us to do so. This atricel is about what has been represented as anti-American not what Edd 'A' thinks is. I would also add that as this is a page about what is in many resepcts (like holocasut denile and the moon landgigns being faked) a fringe theory, as such its a page about the theory, not one about America.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

While updating a dead link in the paragraph about the Korean movie the Host, I noticed that the link does not, in fact, make any reference to anti-Americanism. That paragraph seems to be there (like half this article) because some Wikipedia editors felt that the movie is anti-American. A single movie is pretty trivial anyway, and seems like a good example of giving weight to something out of proportion to its substance. Any objection to removing the text? Noloop (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If it makes no referance to the film being anti-American remoce the text.Slatersteven (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We have agreed that the film referance may be removed, but that does not give cart blanche permision to remove any other material in the saem paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What I said applied to "that paragraph." The reference for the song is 1) a dead link, 2) originally a link to eatthestate.org which isn't a reliable source, 3) and finally a single rock song is trivial in the same way a single movie trivial. If you are going to revert someone's edit based on valid referencing, then check the damn references. (Also, I did not delete the whole paragraph; I moved the last part to a different, more logical place.) Noloop (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Although you say updating a paragraph you talk only about the movie, so it was logical when you say remove text you were refering to the text about the movie. you make no mention of this applying to the whole paragrtaph (just the text you mention). In fact you say your were updating a link, and raise no other onjections except to the movie referance, you make no referance to remoVing removing the pop sone m(you might have a point, or it might be just an illustration of the sourt of ways that anti-americanism expresses itslef). Nor do you say that there are any dodgy links, in fact you comment implies you have dealt with the soourcing issue and have found a probloom with only one other item in the paragraph. Moreover I do not accuse you of removing all material, I say other material in the same paragraph (not all, material).Slatersteven (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, every time I resolve to work with you, I am presented with such garbled text that I just can't make out much meaning, and so I feel like giving up. I did raise an objection other than the dead link: a single movie, like a single pop song, isn't significant. It's a perfect example of violating due weight. I said this when I said we should remove it. Noloop (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Then please provide the quote were you object to other text in the paragraph as I cannot see it. You only mentioned the film (you text about due wieght) "A single movie is pretty trivial anyway, and seems like a good example of giving weight to something out of proportion to its substance." I can see no referance to this applying to anything other then the movie. I also said that you did raise objections to the movie, I said you rasied no objections to anything else (other then the dead link), again please provide the quote wehere you did as I am missing it.Slatersteven (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you please just focus on making the article better, instead of this you-said-I-said_you-said stuff? Do you really think a single pop song deserves inclusion here? If that standard were applied equally to all cultures, why aren't we listing half of all Bob Dylan songs, Dead Kennedys, etc. There are thousands of songs that are anti-American by any popular definition. There is no due weight here. Noloop (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That would depend on how popular the song was. Or if the song became the centre of a major campign ect. I said you might have a point about the sone reciving undue weight, I Also said tehre might be a reason its here. Now I shall lo0ok for sources for this so to determine it suitability foe inclusion. I can find a couple of referances, but nothing really establising any kind of notability. Also the page on the song had a number of broken links. I wouls ask the person who included this to explain the rationale for its inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Twentieth Century

I've added a bit about the Cold War, referenced to Rubin and Rubin who state that there were some anti-American elements involved in this. Have any editors got any problems with this? If so, state them here, before deleting referenced material. If people think its too short I (or any other editor) can expand it. Colin4C (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You should explain their position in greater detail and avoid the word "suggest". Also, you should be clear whether there is a consensus that this was anti-Americanism or was it anti-capitalism directed at the U. S.? TFD (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If the source says that there is an anti-American welement (and I have to assume that he user is not mis-representing his source) then I see no objection nto its inclusion. But it might be helpfull to find a few more sources. I have also removed some material I felt was not needed , and re-worded it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You have destoyed the sense by removing the first sentence. Your version:

"In their book Hating America Rubin and Rubin say that, as part of this Cold War betwen the two super-powers, the Soviet Union issued "anti-American condemnations regarding US foreign policy".

In my version the word "this" refers to the Cold War:

"On page 85 of a book called Hating America, published in 2004, Barry Rubin and Judith Colp Rubin state that after World War Two there was Cold War between the USA and the USSR.[37] On page 86 Rubin and Rubin suggest that, as part of this Cold War betwen the two super-powers, the Soviet Union issued "anti-American condemnations regarding US foreign policy".

The anti-American foreign policy happened in relation to the Cold War, therefore it is relevant to mention that. Anti-Americanism happens within a context. Colin4C (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It is trivial. As someone pointed out, it is a given that any kind war is going to be a case of "anti" -ism. You might as well just make the general comment: "Many commentators have accused America's enemies of anti-Americanism." You're not providing the reader any information beyond that. We are also severely violating due weight in this article. Half the text is from a very small group of sources--Rubin, O'Connor, Hollander and Caesar. Noloop (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

So remove the word this. We do not need to know about the cold war, the articel is n ot avbout that. All we need to know is that during the cold war the Soviots engadged in anti-American ranting. I do however thinhk that if RS say its anti-American tyhen we can inct.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with using a small number of sources provided they represent the main literature of a subject as they do here. In fact what you see as a single source is actually a collection of articles from various experts. The Cold War is important. But we need to know whether the Soviets appealed to anti-U. S. sentiment or anti-capitalism. Did they explain U. S. policies as a result of the actions of their ruling class or did they see it as a result of their nationality? TFD (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you know they represent "the main literature in the field"? There is not even a "main" widely-accepted usage of the term, much less a "main" widely-accepted literature in "the field". The topic is inherently controversial, political, and Anglo-biased. The term is widely used in right-wing propaganda, and indiscriminate use of those sources just reflects that propaganda. Noloop (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you mean angol-biased? The articel is about the propoganda, its about what some have called anti-American, read the leadSlatersteven (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I mean what the Neutral Point of View FAQ says, which I quoted here three days ago and will now quote again:

Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view? Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them. A special WikiProject has been set up to deal with this problem. This is not only a problem in the English Wikipedia. The French Language Wikipedia may reflect a French bias, the Japanese Wikipedia may reflect a Japanese bias, and so on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus Noloop (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

We know they represent "the main literature in the field" because Brendon O'Connor provides an overview of the scholarship of anti_Americanism in the first chapter of his book.[9] TFD (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to distinguish between how we know something, and "Brendon O'Connor says so." Noloop (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Provide the counter POV then, find the sources that refute the claims and include them. No one has refused to allow you to put the other side of the argument (indead I have repeatly asked you to do so), that X or Y is not anti-American but mearly represented as such for political reasons.Slatersteven (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The guideline says clearly: seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias. It is not merely a matter of balancing one POV with another. We would not respond to 50k of text calling Gandhi bad by inserting 100k of text calling Gandhi good. We would drastically reduce the POV, period. Noloop (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, could you please strike out your comment, "You need to distinguish between how we know something, and "Brendon O'Connor says so." You are well aware of the policies of verifiability and neutrality and the relevance of O'Connor has been explained to you. Your continuing to question this is disruptive, hinders other editors from improving this article and could even lead to wasting the time of other editors if it is brought to the RSN noticeboard. TFD (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, no. But I'd like you to answer the question. It would show some commitment to actually communicating. Noloop (talk) 04:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It is difficult to accept that you would question this if you have read policies and guidelines, but I will explain it to you anyway. The guidlelines state:

• WP:SYN#Reliable_sources: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."
• Neutral point of view: "If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts...."

Question: Is Anti-Americanism: Contemporary perspectives a reliable source? Yes, because it is published by Greenwood Publishing Group, a reputable academic publisher.

Question: How do we know the degree of academic acceptance of various writers about anti-Americanism? The editor Brendon O'Connor tells us what writers are the leading authorities on the subject.

Question: What can we do if we do not like the literature about anti-Americanism? We may provide a reliable source that challenges O'Connor's view of the liberature, we may try to get WP policies and guidelines changed, or we may choose to present our own views at another forum.

Question: What should we not do? Continually challenge consensus without providing any new sources.

Do you have any questions?

TFD (talk) 06:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think that a "reliable source" is somebody whose opinions can be reported as fact. That is not what it means. Your source is a reliable source for the claim that O'Connor thinks what is attributed to him in that book. That's not in question. The question is why you want to report his opinion as fact. Noloop (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

we are not saying Russia was anti-American during the cold war, we are saying that O'Connor has said that Russia was. We are allowed to do this under policy. We are nor reproting his opinion as fact but as opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not what we're discussing. Noloop (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

OK then what is O'Connor used as a referance for and why do you object to its inclusion? Does it say that O'Connor (or a broader definition like some scholers) say X? or does it just say X?Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Also demonstrate tyhat this is culturaly biased please. No evidance has been provided that this is biased other them opinion by one edd. I certainoly agree that we must word the artciel carefully in order to ensure that it is made clear that accusations of anti-Americanism are just that accusations and no more. Now if any edd can find an example of where the articel does not do this then please quote the text and we can discuse its alteration.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In the light of the critique by other editors I've amended and expanded the section on the Cold War. It now reads:

"In their book Hating America Rubin and Rubin say that, as part of the Cold War between the USSR and the USA after World War Two, the Soviet Union issued "anti-American condemnations regarding US foreign policy".[37] According to Jay Leda in Kino (1983) anti-Americanism in Russia, at this time, extended to the cultural sphere also, in particular cinema. Leda says: "Romm's filming of Simonov's play The Russian Question, was the opening barrage of anti-American films that were a sad phenomenon of the state that we called 'the cold war'."[38] Leda goes on to say that: "the films produced in 1949 and 1950 included a disproportionate number of anti-American subjects. After the Simonov-Romm Russian Question of 1947 nearly every Soviet film director rushed to write or direct a film on that villain, the United States.[39] According to Leda, the most notable of these anti-American films were Meeting on the Elbe by Grigori Alexandrov, Conspiracy of the Doomed by Mikhail Kalatozov, Secret Mission by Mikhail Romm, and Court of Honour by Abram Room.[40]".

What do editor's think? Feel free to amend and expand it, rather than just blindly deleting it and engaging in an endless edit war, which is becoming all too frequent round here lately. I look forward to positive input...Lets all try and make this a good article which covers all aspects of the subject. Note that I have strictly referenced the material to Rubin and Rubin and Leda. I think Leda was in Russia at the time these films were produced, so he has both knowledge of that period through having lived through it and also knowledge in retrospect. Colin4C (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Its a bit long, perhaps we do not need to actualy know of any films. But its not that improtant.Slatersteven (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a few more sources (how many is enough)?Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism as Propaganda

I think this article is full of authors who do this: "... the label is a propaganda term that is used to dismiss any censure of the United States as irrational." The recent section on the Cold War is a good example. Editors are supposed to TRY to get consensus. If you try honestly, discssuing with an open-mind, and there is still a small minority who refuses to agree, fine, override the minority. Although even then, when a topic is prone to cultural bias, you have to be very careful. At this point, there has been no real discussion, but a lot of antagonistic commentary. Noloop (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph states that it is propaganda, as such it address the issue you seem to be concerned about. If the section is culturally biased then find non-Anglo sources do not just delete but try to improve (nor did you raise an objection when asked you just decided to delete). Now have you a revised text to suggest that address the perceived cultural bias, or that address the perceived lack of mention of the fact that the cold war anti-Americanism of the Soviet block was propaganda? What is your objection Bias, Undue weight, fringe theory, or something else?Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've probably stated my general objections about 100 times for about a year now. I already quoted to you the explicit Wikipedia guideline that recommends deleting culturally biased text, which is also how some due wieght problems are best handled (like fringe theories). It is doubly relevant here because the article already violates rules about length; to add an equal amount of balancing material is not possible. Also, a large part of the problem of cultural bias is that balancing texts don't exist in equal amounts in one language. Do you read Russian? If not, you are at a disadvantage in representing the Soviet view in the Cold War section. Every editor is supposed to care about neutrality and other core principles. Do not add so much one-sided material that the article is not neutral, and then demand someone else find the material to "balance" it. I've said all this about a hundred times before. Noloop (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, in the Cold War we should not present the views of Cold Warriors of either side, but rely on current scholarship of the period. Since scholarship is international, bias should not come into it. Bias creeps in when we rely on news media, which does present a cultural bias. TFD (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course bias can come into it (by the way you may have given a whole new reason to object to material). One of the issues that noloop has identified is that the very subject of this article is subject to cultural bias. Cold war not excepted, after all historical events are subject to cultural revisionism. That is why all statements in this article must at all time be attributed.

How can Nollop have objected to this passage 100 times in a year, its not been here more then a few weeks (and that is being very generous). General objections to a page cannot be used to object to specific passages. Now is Nollop saying that this cold war paragraph is a fringe theory?

Actually I can ask an eed to find sources if they constantly claim that there is bias, the fact Nollop has not (and appear to have refused to) can only mean that Nollop has either not tired, or been unable, to find sources that back up his claims. Nollop has not provided a single piece of evidence backing his claim that this is culturally biased. By the way where does guidelines say we should delete cultural biased text?

As to me being able to read Russian, that is not relevant I am not the only edd on wikipeida, if there is a problem here then we need to fine Russian edds willing to add information (has Nollop tried, Nollop is the objector the only person claiming bias) , not just delete information because we only have one side.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The majority of the article amounts to a handful of Anglos and/or Americans accusing everybody else in the world of anti-Americanism. It's racist. Noloop (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Pleae discuse the paragraph, it does not matter if the rest of the article is biased or not. At this time what your objection seems to be is I do not like this articel so will argue over this addition regardelss of any real reason.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

My objection is that the article is culturally and racially prejudiced. The vast majority of sources and text amount to Americans accusing other cultures (especially non-White ones) of being anti-American. Noloop (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

So you have no specific disagreement with the paragraph, just with the article as a whole? Take it to AFD then. By the way whilst the vast majority of sources may be accusation the text of the article attributes all statements. It does not present them as fact but as opinions. Also being too long is not an excuse for refusing to do what you are saying should be done (your main objection is bias, so instead of addressing it with other POV you are saying the article is too long so we should just delete any POV material).Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

My objection to the paragraph is that it increases the cultural bias of the article. Noloop (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that the paragraph is biased, then why not put the other side??Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, can you please provide a source for the view that use of the term anti-Americanism shows a cultural bias. Incidentally anti-Americanism also exists in the English-speaking world, for example in Canada, where a town was named "Laugh at the Yankees Cove". TFD (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty damn obvious that the term "anti-American" is not culturally neutral. Noloop (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is not obvious to me and I would be appreciative if you would explain your reasoning. TFD (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The main definition is prejudice, hatred, irrational attacks, etc. It's negative. Are there a lot of Muslim critics who write essays about their irrational hatred of Americans? Do the Japanese people identified as anti-American by our sources write books about themselves titled Hating America? Noloop (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As you have obviously found sources that call it culturally biased why not put those viewpoints in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, the article does not say that. It says, "Brendon O'Connor notes that studies of the topic have been... often one-sided attacks on anti-Americanism as an irrational position" and "critics sometimes argue the label is a propaganda term that is used to dismiss any censure of the United States as irrational". Of course some anti-Americanism is irrational and some things called anti-Americanism are not anti-American at all. TFD (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't read the article's first sentence. Noloop (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence reads, "Anti-Americanism, often anti-American sentiment, is prejudice or hostility to the United States". It says nothing about irrationality. TFD (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Or come to that hatred.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right: It's all about rational prejudice and loving hostility. This is a waste of time. Neither of you is attempting to collaborate. You are just playing a game, acting like you are the attorney for your edits instead of a teammate in something we are supposed to be doing together. TFD has a track record of frivolous complaints and punitive actions against anywone who disagrees with him. He just tried to get a community-wide ban on someone who's been editing for 5 years. The article is culturally biased because 80% of its source and 90% of its text consists of Americans accusing non-Americans of anti-Americanism. That's all it is. Anglo editors finding Anglo sources accusing non-Anglos of offenses. Brilliant; Noloop (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly when you quote something that is what you do, you do not add your interpretation to it. The first line does not use the language you use (by the way you can have hostility without hate, and whilst prejudice is unreasoning (and even irrational) that does not automatically mean its an irrational attack (which is what you said, at least quote yourself correctly), the attack may be perfectly rational). Secondly no one has refused to allow you to put in criticism of the term, nor to put in non-western perspectives (as I have repeatedly asked you to do). All we have said is you cannot delete material just because you either cannot (or are unwilling) to find sources to back up your statements.Slatersteven (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Also I take great offence to your accusation that I have not attempted to work with you. If you care to check you will find I have backed you on more then one occasion. I have even deleted material you have said should not be in the article. I ask you to withdraw that slur now.Slatersteven (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(out) Noloop, it seems that your criticism is that you do not like peer-reviewed academic writing, which you believe has a pro-U. S. bias. While it may, we are bound to follow WP policies on NPOV and neutrality. Instead of arguing at this article, perhaps you should work to change WP policy. TFD (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

1. The text in this article based on peer-reviewed articles is miniscule, and you know that, because we've already discussed that. 2. That was a perfect example of not listening, not trying to collaborate, but just trying to wikilawyer. Noloop (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps you could list sources that you think are unreliable. BTW, you do not appear to know what WP:wikilawyering means. TFD (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The objection is not based on reliability of sources, as I've repeatedly said. It is based on cultural bias, as I've repeatedly said. That was a good example of complete indifference, and lawyering, with regards to what others have said. Noloop (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this article at the NPOV noticeboard here. TFD (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism

Does it violate neutrality to say that the Nazis were anti-American? TFD (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Er... um.... what??? Let's see, the US fought the Nazi's during world war two. The current neo-nazi groups are clearly un-american as they do not hold to the ideal of what America is all about, but rather the fringe theories of various white suprecist groups. Sorry, I don't see the value of this RfC, it seems pretty clear cut to me. What Naziism stands for is counter what the USA stands for.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

FOr my part the issue is not that the Nazis were anti-American, there are sources saying just that. Its trying to link the holocasue (which not only targeted jews) into anti-americanism (even thoug hHitler did not gas any US POW's, or even use them as slave labour).Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Er.... Re gassing: "the poison gas Zyklon B was successfully tested on a sample of 900 Russian prisoners"[10], For example, the SS gassed Soviet POWs at Auchwitz ..."[11], "The killing of the above-mentioned Russion POWs ..." note 208 at [12] — those were Soviet POWs, but gassing of American POWs was apparently planned: "Hitler had ordered that Jewish American POWs were to be segregated and made part of his 'Final Solution."[13]. Re slave labor: "Sunup till sundown were our slave labor hours"[14], "at least 70 POWs died of the effects of slave labor"[15], "Number of POWs employed in Germany as slave laborers: 245"[16]. Anti-American? Probably not—just demented (Hitler) and unspeakably evil (Hitler and his cohorts). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's not forget the Malmedy massacre, when American POWs were murdered by the SS. TFD (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling anything anti-American is a political interpretation. That doesn't mean it is wrong (as some of the comments seem to suggest). The question is not whether you can make a good case that the Nazis were anti-American. Calling the Nazis evil is also a violation of neutrality, even though we will all agree it is true. We can all make a good case that the Nazis were evil. Nonetheless, it is not encyclopedic to call the Nazis evil. Neutrality means you describe what the Nazis did, and let the reader decide what to call it. This article itself says that the term, anti-American, is poorly defined, subject to propaganda, and so on. The term has no consistent meaning, as this article itself says. We, the editors, cannot be calling things anti-American. We couldn't do that if the term were well defined (because it is an opinion), and we certainly can't do it when it is ill-defined. Noloop (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that the article topic is inherently POV, then list it for deletion. Otherwise please do not tag the article, "The neutrality of this article is disputed" with the explanation "violations of policy regarding synthesis and neutrality; restore warning". My response was, "Please explain POV issues before tagging". You must do this before re-tagging. TFD (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The tag has nothing to do with deletion or "inherently POV." The tag describes exactly what is going on here in Talk: a dispute over the neutrality of the article as it currently stands. I have explained the POV issues, here, many times. The fact that you disagree with them does not mean they don't exist. Compare to Evil. It is, in some sense, "inherently POV" as everybody should agree. That doesn't mean an encyclopedia can't have an article about it. It means the encyclopedia cannot suggest certain people are evil (and remain neutral). That's my view. You are free to disagree, you aren't free to assert that the dispute doesn't exist. Noloop (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you claiming that it is POV to say that the Nazis were anti-American? If so the correct place for the tag is "Fascist critiques". TFD (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It is POV to say anything is anti-American. The problem persists throughout the article. The "Fascist critiques" section is just one example. Noloop (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not POV when reliable sources state it as fact and there is no serious dispute. In the most obvious examples, people who say they hate Americans may safely be described as "anti-American". TFD (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

They don't state it as fact, they state it as their interpretation. However, in the case of parts of this article, the problem is that they don't state it at all. Friedlander doesn't say anything is anti-American. Noloop (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If some one says that someting is Anti-American then we would attribute it in text (it is after all an opinion). If however some one dose not say something is anti-American then neither can we, that would be OR and Synthasis. As to some one saying tehy hate Americans, in that case that is what they would have to say 'I hate all Americans' not 'I hate some Americans'.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Re Friedlander, the only place I see him mentioned in the article is as the source of a paraphrased quote of Hitler vilifying Jews and bemoaning Roosevelt for the circle of Jews said to have been surrounding him,. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be becasue some of the contested material has been repeatedly removed (and reinserted). Hoever the material still in the articel maeks the point. He is not saying that Hitler hated Americans, just Jewish ones. As such it cannot be said (from the material in Friedlander) that Hitler hated Americans, and thus by extension America (even though there are plenty of sources supporting that assertion (as such its difficult to see why we need the Friedlander material)).Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Neutrality - no. Common sense - yes. The statement gives an improper weight to an inevitable: a nation in a state of total war is always anti-its-enemies. When the Americans waged war on Germany, they became a target for propaganda. Up to this moment, the Germans were more than happy receiving American financing, Hitler hailed Henry Ford etc. Surely there was wide-spread popular discontent against the founders of the Versailles regime, but it was largely a British and French initiative anyway. So, although the statement "Nazi were anti-American" can be sourced, the extent and significance of their anti-americanism was nowhere near that of their anti-semitism or anti-bolshevism. Take care not to make such an impression on the readers. East of Borschov (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Nazi anti-Americanism was based on their perception of the U. S. as controlled by Jews, like Franklin D, Rozenvelt, that it was materialistic, and that it allowed in other races. But it is still anti-Americanism, just as anti-Semitism does not have to be as extreme as the Nazis. TFD (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it be encyclopedic to say Americans are anti-Iranian? Our leaders called Iran part of the Axis of Evil. Can it be clearly implied--in an encyclopedia--that America is anti-Muslim? This is "obvious" to most Muslims around the world, since we bomb and sanction Muslim countries on a regular basis. Noloop (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Germany, too, was controlled by the Jews; this hardly makes Nazis anti-German. Pointing out perceived problems of a nation is not precisely -ism.East of Borschov (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Need more context to comment on this. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Anti americanism is really a quite new phenomenon. If you can find sources that claims it, fine, but I really don't think Nazism is particularily anti-american. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Er to take just one instance Ian Kershaw say on page 391 of Fateful Choices that in 1937 that "the volume of anti-American propaganda in Germany was turned up sharply" Please give refs if you think that Kershaw is wrong and that there was no anti-American propaganda in Nazi Germany or that it didn't increase in 1937. Kershaw in his discussion of the matter on pages 382-430 says that German Anti-Americanism was both ideological and strategic. America was seen as a tool of the supposed Jewish World Conspiracy and was therefore opposed for ideological reasons. Strategically it was also opposed as an impediment to German world domination. Positing an alternative Hitlerite ideology in an alternative universe in which America was not a supposed front for the Jewish World Conspiracy and did not impede Nazi ideological or strategic plan is just bizarre. The world is as it is. The wikipedia is not about wishful thinking about what might have been in an alternative reality but is based on referenced facts about what actually did happen in reality. I.e, Hitler opposed the USA on ideological and strategic reasons and then declared war on her. That is a referenced fact.If you believe Kershaw and Friedlander are wrong please provide refs rather than your personal musings.Colin4C (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

But this is a modern book interperating Nazi attitudes in the light if modern political philosphey. We can say that Mr Kershaw bleive that the NAzis were anti-American, but we cannot say that anti-Americanism dates from that period without a source from that perios making that claim.Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Kershaw is an historian and a reliable source in terms of the wikipedia. The work of modern historians on - say - the Roman Empire is perfectly acceptible in the wikipedia. Do you think that everything on the Roman Empire in the wikipedia can only be referenced to the original Roman writers and that everything that modern historians have to say about the Roman Empire is illegitimate? Au contaire original documents are not regarded as reliable sources on the wikipedia. Colin4C (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Given the contencious nature of the term, and the fact that there is no clear definition of what it is (unlike the Roman empire) all you can say is that A has claimed that B is anti-American. The poster has stated thyat the concept is of recent origin, so to demonstrate otehrwise nees contemperanious sources, not sources that are from the very period that the poster claism the phrase origionates from.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment As others have said, neutrality has nothing to do with this. As far as I know, the Nazi's had no special dislike for Americans but I an no expert and what I think does not matter anyway. The question should be answered by asking if there are any reliable sources which say that the Nazis were anti-American, in those exact words, if those are the words you want to use. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to Restructure

The Nazi's I doubt were anti-american, they were a brand of socialism known as Fascism, thus they were anti-capitalists. It seems that they would have accepted anyone/government that followed a particular governing philosophy, Japan didnt seem to have a problem getting along with Germany. If anti-american is syn with anti-capitalism then it should be ok to say that Nazi's were anti-american, but I would say no. Nazi's are anti-capitalists and america is a capitalist country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antithesisresearch (talk • contribs) 18:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

We should select the theories of anti-Americanism that deserve the most weight, and give them sections. Presumably, this would mean identifying theories that have more than 3 or 4 adherents. The current canvassing of different regions and eras, each supported by one or two pundits, gives a false impression of consensus and authority. Noloop (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagee, all we need is a number (more then 2?) that report a claim, not endorse it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:DUE for info on Wikipedia's policy in this regard. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As I see it this says that we need only worry about undue weight when there are conflicting views, one of which is held buy a majority. A ssuch we would need to see some sources that say (for example) that the Nazis were not anti-American. If however the articel is about a minority view then all we need to do is make that clear, again we would need sources saying that this is a minoirty view, not just some edds opinion that it is.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(de-indent)

The policy does not say you only consider due weight when there are conflicting views. You ALWAYS consider due weight. If there were equally prominent conflicting views, we would mention both views. That doesn't mean uncontested views held by a trivial number (2 or 3) of people can be presented without limit. Policies:

• Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight".
• Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence.
• generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.
• Sometimes the internal structure of an article may require additional attention, to protect neutrality, and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight.... Be alert for arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes, or other elements that may unduly favor one particular point of view, and for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a neutral reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.

So, for example, the view that the Degeneracy Thesis is an important case of anti-Americanism has been advanced by two people. That's it. Is that really a level prominences and significance that deserves its own multi-paragraph section?

This is particularly relevant:

Wikipedia seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to the neutral point of view? Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or European Anglophone perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and European Anglophone people working on the project. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration between Anglo-Americans and people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them. A special WikiProject has been set up to deal with this problem. This is not only a problem in the English Wikipedia. The French Language Wikipedia may reflect a French bias, the Japanese Wikipedia may reflect a Japanese bias, and so on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Anglo-American_focus Noloop (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, I find some of your writing confusing. The term "theory" can mean an anti-American theory held by individuals or an analysis of that theory and those individuals. For example, A. Hitler believed in an anti-American theory. Academics hold the theory that these views were anti-American. This came up at the fringe theory noticeboard: anti-American theories are fringe, but academics who write about these fringe theories are not themselves fringe. TFD (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Academics are perfectly capable of holding fringe theories. Deniers of the Holocaust and natural selection include people with advanced degrees. The fact is, in all of the social sciences, we can find 2 or 3 who interpret the Degeneracy Thesis as an important case of anti-Americanism. Why does that interpretation have its own section? Noloop (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Academics who are holocaust deniers do not publish their ideas in academic journals or the academic press. TFD (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This article's "References" section contains a single peer-reviewed item, and it has nothing to do with Nazis or the Degeneracy Thesis. This article isn't based on academic sources. But this is all beside the point. As I said on the fringe theory noticeboard, fringe theories in a strict sense concern factual matters. We might call the theory that Gandhi was evil a fringe theory in a loose sense, and that's sense I'm applying to the interpretation of the Degeneracy Thesis as anti-American. The interpretation has been advanced by 2 or 3 people. Why does it have its own section? Noloop (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain your perspective. Do you feel that because of America's greatness it is self-evident that any theory that some people oppose her is fringe or is it that you think the reference to Nazi Germany inserts an anti-Nazi POV into the article? TFD (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There are more then two source for the dengeneracy theory, Policy does not state that it is based on the number of people who support a view; but on its prominance, the amount of coverage it recives. Also there was at least one other source in the Nazi section that was removed.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't make much sense of either of the comments above. I discussed academic sources because TFD made a point about academic sources. I see two sources--in fact, the article itself specifies that there are only two sources--for the interpretation of the Degeneracy Thesis as a significant case of anti-Americanism. Neither is academic. That was my point. Saying Osama bin Laden or Hitler is anti-American is the same sort of thing as saying Gandhi is good: seemingly "obvious," but still a statement of opinion not fact, and not something an encyclopedia tries to tell a reader. Noloop (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The articel uses two sources, it does not say that there are only two sources (which by the way is not the origional source but others discusing and interperating it, so that makes 3, even if we ignore the 5 or 6 other sources in the section). Also how do you define accademic? Mr Ceaser is Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia (I think that counts as an accademic). Philip Roger is a Research Program Director at the French National Center for Scientific Research. Sophie Meunier is Research Scholar in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. Richard H. Popkin (December 27, 1923—April 14, 2005) was a historian of enlightenment philosophy and early modern anti-dogmatism. Gerald A. Danzer Professor (emeritus) Department of History University of Illinois at Chicago.Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

TFD referred to "academic journals or the academic press." That is what we were discussing. The sources in question are books, written to advance the authors' particular interpretation. The sources don't appear to be "academic journals or the academic press," they do not appear to be peer-reviewed. They are books. This article lists a single item as peer-reviewed in its "References" section. That is what we were discussing. Thank you. Noloop (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer reviewed journal sources used in the section.

Ceaser, James W. "A genealogy of Anti-Americanism", The Public Interest, Summer 2003

Grantham, Bill (Summer 2003). "Brilliant Mischief: The French on Anti-Americanism". World Policy Journal 20

Popkin, Richard H. (January 1978). "The Dispute of the New World: The History of a Polemic, 1750-1900 (review)" . Journal of the History of Philosophy 16

Danzer, Gerald A. (February 1974). "Has the Discovery of America Been Useful or Hurtful to Mankind? Yesterday's Questions and Today's Students". The History Teacher (Society for History Education) 7

Note this only lists thiose that have actual magazine origions listed. Not papers that may not have been published in journels. I count more then 1.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, are we discussing magazines? No. Do they all make references to anti-Americanism? No. Are they all about the Degeneracy Thesis? No. Are they all sources used in this article? No. Are some of them partisan neo-conservative journals? The Public Interest was; I don't know about the rest. The fact that we have a known neo-conservative publication as a "neutral" source is disturbing. Is one of them actually just a book review? Have you actually read any of those sources yourself? No you obviously have not. Noloop (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Doses the accademic press mean just magazimes, no it can include journels online or hard copy. They do not all referance Anti-Americansim in the title no, but they have been used as sources for the claism so prove they do not referance it in the text (I assujme that the person who included the sources checked them). All of these are used as sources in the article, perhpas you should re-check. As what it say is not presented as faxctg but as opinion then it does not matter if a source is biased, we are represnting an opinion. Nor has any one claimed its neutral, but it was writen by a respected accademic. One is a book review, and I have doubts about that my self, but we are disccusing all of the section not just the text supported by the review. It does not matter if I have read them all, it matters that they are there. If you can demonstrate by direct quotation that a given source is mis-used or mis-represented then do so. Otherwise take this the the RSN board. You are making an accusartuion that these sources (IE the one that I have not red) do not support the text, that is an accusation of falsificationl of sources.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I simply cannot deal with text that I have to re-read several times in order to make an educated guess about meaning. If you can't take the time to be coherent, I can't take the time to seriously consider your point. All I can say is that if you haven't actually read the source, you have no basis to defend it. Noloop (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I hope this is bette for you. Does the academic press mean just magazines, no it can include journals (online or hard copy). They do not all reference Anti-Americanism in the title no, but they have been used as sources for the claims so prove they do not reference it in the text (I assume that the person who included the sources checked them, that is what assuming good faith means). All of these are used as sources in the article, perhaps you should re-check. As what The Public Interest says is not presented as fact but as opinion (it is attributed to the author) then it does not matter if that source is biased, we are representing an opinion. Nor has any one claimed its neutral, but it was written by a respected academic. One is a book review, and I have doubts about that my self, but we are discussing all of the section not just the text supported by the review. It does not matter if I have read them all, it matters that they are there, again assume good faith and assume whoever included it had read it (unless you can demonstrate the contrary). If you can demonstrate by direct quotation that a given source is mis-used or mis-represented then do so. Otherwise take this to the RSN board. You are making an accusation that these sources (IE the one that I have not red) do not support the text that is an accusation of falsification of sources. Lastly I do not need to read a source to ask you to provide proof that it is mis-represented, it’s down to you to demonstrate that the source is mis-used. The sources I have read do support the text, so I have no reason to assume the others do not (unless you can demonstrate otherwise).Slatersteven (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Definition

I have used the defininition (directly quoted from Websters) why is this not acceptable? Do you have a source that contradicts Websers? Also Nollop this was not a minor edit, this was not changing the spelling for example but changing the meaning, as such I shall ask you to please not make false claims. Also do not remo9ve sourced a]material that is vandalism.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The source that contradicts Webster's is almost every other source used in this article, which defines it as something irrational and negative. See WP:NAD. Noloop (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

But those are not the words I have replaced. besides I thought that most of the sources only put the Anglo side of things? Also the first sentance is talking about tis definition(from dictionaries), not its interpritation, which is in the second line of the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've attempted a compromise, although it's pretty bad. Dictionary definitions are mostly irrelevant. See: WP:NAD. Noloop (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I can live with that.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring complaint at WP:AN3

Regular editors of this page might take a look at WP:AN3#User:Slatersteven reported by User:Noloop (Result: ). It seems there ought to be a way to arrive at a consensus on this page on some of the issues that are in dispute. You are welcome to suggest how this might be done. EdJohnston (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Latin America

If the sources do not say its anti-Amercian then neither can we. So could we have the passages from the contested paragraphs sources that state that these represent (or influenced) anti-Americanism please.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Which are the contested paragraphs and sources, and why? Can you be more especific? The lines removed yesterday were:

1. The first two lines of the first paragraph just explain the context (w/sources) for the second two lines (Bilbao and Porfirio Díaz "Anti-American" qutoes). These two quotes would be confusing without context explanation. (PS:I've just added an AA reference for the first line) --IANVS (talk | cont) 13:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC).
2. The quote at the beginning of the subsection is by Che Guevara, the same guy that would be considered "Anti-American" in pargraph #5, along with Fidel Castro... and it is a pretty expressive quote on AA, too.
3. The first line of the third paragraph is "Anti-American"-sourced indeed, and explains the context for the "Anti-American" second line of that same paragraph. The reference to the book and author in the later line would appear to be confusing without context explanation.

Again, can you be more especific as to what lines/paragraphs would you like to remove, and why? Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 12:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well for a start "quote at the beginning of the subsection is by Che Guevara, the same guy that would be considered "Anti-American" in pargraph #5, along with Fidel Castro... and it is a pretty expressive quote on AA, too." is synthasis. If the source does not say he ws anti-American then we cant'. The same goes for the first two lines, if the sources do not say that this is part of anti-Americanism tyhen we can't draw that conclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Translation and contextualizing. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 13:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I can't see anywhere in that were it says that you can ignore OR and draw conclusion not expresly stated in source.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the quotes by Bilbao and Porfirio Díaz need to be contextualized. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 14:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? seems to be that we do not need to contextualize something unkess the mlink has been made by RS, has it?

If it is not clear about what the sources are talking about, then it would be impossible to understand its meaning. The link from the RS is made since the quotes are talking explicitly about the events we are explaining for contextualization. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 15:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

But that is editorilaising. We do not tell people what a context is unless RS make that link, we just provide the sources and allow the user to determine if there is a context. But if RS do not make that contextual li8nk then we can't. That is synthasis.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Re/ Che Guevara's quote, it is probably dispensable as per WP:PRIMARY. However, I recommend reading the whole document. Though not "explicitly" Anti-American, there is an evident "opposition"/"distrust"/"hostility" towards US policies (Imperialism, CIA operations, etc.) regarding Latin America. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 14:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

if its not "explicitly" Anti-American then we can#t use it per OR. Sources must "explicitly" support a text.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd accept a deletion of this particular quote, as per WP:Primary, as I said before. But, anyway, there's a broader problem with the definition of "Anti-Americanism": as it is a rather recent concept, and there is not a universally accepted definition, it would be impossible to find explicit references in most relevant sources. However, if we have WP:RS to define Guevara's revolutionary stance as Anti-American (5th paragrpah in this subsection), then we should be allowed to quote him being "evidently" anti-american. Of course, this anti-americanism will always depend on definition. But, as the article stands today, I find it consequential to keep this quote as a pertaining expression of AA. --IANVS (talk | cont) 15:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no problom wiih defining anti-Americanism, if an RS says something is then we can if they do not , then we can't. Does the RS define Guevara's revolutionary stance as Anti-American, all I see is something that says nothing about Che Guevara being anti_american.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is wrong, and its wrongness has been pointed out 100 times over the course of a year: " if an RS says something is then we can". All we can say is that the source says something is anti-American.
• The larger problem with this article, which has also been pointed out 100 times in the last year, is that editors are adding material as if "referenced" were the only thing that matters. It's not sufficient for articles merely to be referenced. They have have to be neutral which means material has to be given due weight, and they have to be free of cultural bias. An article consisting 90% of Anglo sources accusing non-Anglo cultures of anti-Americanism is not culturally neutral. An article which treats every passing mention of the term "anti-Americanism" in any generic mainstream news article or op-ed piece as a basis for inclusion--after, it's referenced--is not observing due weight requirements. Noloop (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No articel can be free from cultural bias, all we can do is try and reduce it to managable levels, Now if you want to provide sources from toeohr persepctives please do. Also something is only given undue wieght if it goes against a wider viewpoint, again no one has refused to let you put in the other view point.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

All of those points have been addressed 100 times in the last year, and there is no point repeating the arguments for the 101th time to somebody who hasn't gotten them the other hundred times. I will simply point out (for the 101th time) that you are calling the "wider viewpoint" is 1) the Anglo viewpoint, and 2) not very wide at all--I'd wager half the text in this article issourced to the same 5 individuals, mostly conservative and Anglo. We have an entire section, the Degeneracy Thesis, based on an interpretation advanced by three commentators. Noloop (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You have actualy counted the nu8mber of sources in the Degeneracy Thesis section? there are about 8 seperate persons sourced there. In one section of this articel (the one you claim is fringe) there are mores sources then you have said are in the whole articel. It of course does not occour to you that hte reason that no one has 'got them' is that you are wrong?Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the sources have been counted. There are not 8 individuals each advancing the theory. I said nothing about how many sources there are in the article. I said nothing about how many total references there are in the section. My comment concerned how many notable individuals advance these theories. In the case of the Degeneracy Thesis, that number is about 3. In the case of the article as a whole the number is less than 10. This article is the James Caesar, Barry Rubin, Brendan O'Connor show. It is a platform for their personal view of this subject. You completely failed to understand what I said, as you always do. You need to stop editing as if finding a source is like having God on your side. SOURCING IS NOT THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS. There are requirements for neutrality: You don't seem to comprehend that neutrality requirements exist, or what they mean. Noloop (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You forgot Judith Rubin that makes four (at least). We judge things based upon the amount of coverage it receives, not the amount of people that believe it. This (Degeneracy Thesis) has received coverage in a number of publication and by many scholars (with 4 (not 3), at least, advancing it). Also do not shout, this is not an argument you need to win. You have managed to create a distraction so that a discussion about one paragraph has now again become a soapbox for you aggressive antagonism to this page (and other edds) in general. If no one is listening to you does it occur to you that maybe you are wrong?Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It will occur to me that I'm wrong when somebody addresses my reasons. I'm certainly not going to think I'm wrong because I'm in the minority (on a culturally biased article, no less), and your suggestion to that effect is offensive. Does Wikipedia policy state that sourcing is the only thing that matters? NO. Does it state that due weight and cultural bias matter? YES. Do you repeatedly justify editing based solely on whether there is sourcing? YES. Noloop (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And the FAQ regarding cultural bias does not say that we should always delete such material. It says that " But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them." in other words we are not required to delete the material, just point out it might (not is, that is your interpretation) be cultural biased. So have you a re-wording you would like to suggest to make any potential biase clear to the reader? Also Philippe Roger is French not American so undermining your claim that this page is culturally biasedSlatersteven (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ohe, well cultural bias does not necessarily imply nationality. Anyway, I think that the problem raised by Noloop is more of a political bias than a cultural bias, although both concur at some point. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 15:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Except that the bias that noloop goes on about is Anglo bias, or bias towards an Anglo-Saxon perspective. He states his objection is to cultural not political bias (repeatedly, so its hard to assume he has stated the wrong objection).Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Philippe Roger

Recapitulation

I'm sure that the cultural bias issue, raised by User:Noloop is almost the same problem I'm referring to when I speak of definition issues (that further involves what is a WP:RS and what is not). So I propose that we begin from the beginning again:

1) Is this the definition of "Anti-Americanism" or not?

• Definition from the lead of the article, as it stands today:

The term Anti-Americanism, or anti-American sentiment, has no widely accepted definition. Dictionaries tend to define it very broadly, as opposition or hostility to the people, policies, or government of the United States.

2) Then, "hostility to the people, policies, or government of the USA" applies to the following disputed paragraphs, or not?

• In Latin America, anti-American sentiment has deep roots dating back to the 1830s and the Texas Revolution in which the province seceded from Mexico. Nine years after, invoking the Monroe Doctrine and its Manifest Destiny, the USA annexed the Republic of Texas and subsequently expanded agressively intoWestern North America. Mexican anti-American sentiment was further inflamed by the 1846-1848 Mexican-American War, in which Mexico lost almost half of its territory to the US.The Chilean writer Francisco Bilbao predicted in America in Danger (1856) that the loss of Texas and north Mexico to "the talons of the eagle" was just a foretaste of an American bid for world domination. Such interventions from the USA prompted a later ruler of Mexico, Porfirio Diaz, to lament "Poor Mexico, so far from God, and so close to the United States". Mexico's National Museum of Interventions, opened in 1981, is a testament to Mexico's sense of grievance with the United States.

• The United States embargo against Cuba maintained resentment and Castro's colleague, the famed revolutionary Che Guevara, expressed his hopes during the Vietnam War of "creating a Second or a Third Vietnam" on the Latin American region against the designs of what he believed to be US imperialism. plus "The United States hastens the delivery of arms to the puppet governments they see as being increasingly threatened; it makes them sign pacts of dependence to legally facilitate the shipment of instruments of repression and death and of troops to use them." (Che Guevara, April 9, 1961 )

3) Can, instead, this be called WP:OR? Then we should remove almost the entire section.

(BTW, if the issue is the explicit and literal usage of "Anti-Americanism", then Latin Americans would never ever be "Anti Americans", since they consider themselves "Americans" too.

Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 17:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

its OR because although it fits the definition from dictionaries there is no clear definition of the phrase “Thus, the nature and applicability of the term is often disputed “. As such we can only say that X has said Y is anti-American. Not that Y is, based upon how we interoperate it. As a highly controversial subject we must operate to a very high standards here. As such anything not explicitly stated by source must be considered OR, even if it fits the narrow and not entirely accepted dictionary definition.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point, especially regarding the highly controversial nature of the subject. I concur in avoiding the use of the "Anti-American" label where there are no explicit mention in WP:RS. But then again, what would remain here will be scattered, uncontextualized fragments. And it would be an absolute necessity (because of the controversial nature of the subject) to contextualize those fragments. Then, considering that every single paragraph in this section is relevant to the topic, I propose that we make no mention of "Anti-Americanism" but of hostility/opposition/mistrust where needed. Making it clear that all of these can be considered AA, or not. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 18:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It measn of course anti-USA, but I think we know that. But there might be a point in making it clear.Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be no more appropriate than inserting copious material on Israeli policy into Islamophobia , because some editors agree that Israel's behavior meets the definition of Islamophobia. The dictionary definition is inadequate, as this article makes clear. We can hardly produce a lot of sources saying there is no agreed-upon definition, and then go around applying a definition we consider agreed-upon in order to suggest people are anti-American. Also, the problem of cultural bias is not the same as the problem of definition. This article consists of a bunch of Anglo sources accusing non-Anglo cultures of anti-Americanism. Noloop (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And what does it means "Anti Americanism" to you, Noloop? "Americanophobia"? I mean, outright opposition to USA government does not mean hatred of American people, in the same way that opposition to Islamist policy does not mean hatred of Muslim practitioner. That's the problem of definition. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 22:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It has no precise, encyclopedic meaning to me. Noloop (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither to me. Yet we have to cope with diverse, incoherent, (even contradictory) existant definitions, as those above. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 23:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that violates WP:NAD. A major problem (there are so many) with this article is that it is about a word rather than a phenomenon. Noloop (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I say we should only include material that some writer has described as anti-american. Then we are not definign teh term, we must of course ensure that it is make clear that this is onoly an opinion (and that it may reflect cultural bias). So I am against th(or retention) of material that is not explictly called anti-American, no matter how much ot might appear like it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Then the section would be a collection of assorted imputations of "Anti Americanism" (along various definitions), lacking any coherent exposition or even a minimal necessary context. I'd rather recompose the entire section, then. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 12:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Not entirley. I am sure that there will be sources that (for example) discuse latin American anti-Americanism in a historical context. In that circumstance we can hace (and should have ) context. We can also have such context were something has no contmperaneous connections. The problom with the first couple of lines in the latin American section is that Latin America has many modern (as well as historical) reasons for anti-American sentiment (in thier eyes) as such we do not need a historical context unless one has been drawn.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the first two lines, both Bilbao's and Díaz' quotes are referring to the Texas annexation and the Mexican-American War, in the context of Monroe Doctrine and the Manifest Destiny. It is the same case as in the second paragraph when we contextualize Rodó in the midst of the Spanish-American War. That's it. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 12:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And we can link to those pges if a reader needs more information.

" The Chilean writer Francisco Bilbao predicted in America in Danger (1856) that the loss of Texas and north Mexico to "the talons of the eagle" was just a foretaste of an American bid for world domination. Such interventions from the USA prompted a later ruler of Mexico, Porfirio Diaz, to lament "Poor Mexico, so far from God, and so close to the United States". Mexico's National Museum of Interventions, opened in 1981, is a testament to Mexico's sense of grievance with the United States."Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Which is why I say we should only include material that some writer has described as anti-american. Then we are not definign teh term" It's the other way around. We need to define "anti-Americanism" in order to know what the article is about. If it is just about how people have used the word--which is what you seem to propose--then it is about a word not a phenomenon.
• "latin American section is that Latin America has many modern (as well as historical) reasons for anti-American sentiment (in thier eyes)" They don't describe their concerns as anti-Americanism, so it is not "in their eyes." "Anti-American" is mainly the terminology of a small number Anglo conservative commentators (or, terminology used in passing in mainstream media stories). Noloop (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You have a point. We should be trying to define not what is anti-American, but what this article is about (after all as you say Wiki is not a dictionary). I have therefore started a new section on that topic.

Do not take quotes out of context and cheery pick them please. I will not respond to your second point for that reason.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What is this page about

The question is simple. What is the purpose of this page?

Is it:
A) A Dictionary page
B) A page that is about the phenomena
C) A page that is about those who use the phrase
D) A page about the accusations
E) A page about how the phrase is applied

Or any combination on the above. Also please restrict yourselves to discusion this issue, please do not do off onto side tracks that will make discusion that much harder.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

According to wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is rather an encyclopedia about things not definitions of words. I think the intro should be modified to reflect that the wikipedia - like the Encyclopedia Britannica etc - is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. Dictionaries give definitions of words. Encyclopedias give information about real things. People saying that they oppose America or commiting actual deeds against America is the encyclopediac sense of anti-Americanism. Imagine that there was an American in Saigon and that they were warned not to go into a certain bar because the people there were anti-American and had killed the last 15 Americans who went there. Would this just be a question of semantics or a very real issue for the person involved? If someone said to me (an Englishman) that in a certain place they hated the English and regularly killed them I wouldn't go there to dispute the meanings of words - I would get the hell out of there! The dictionary sense is elementary anyway: "Anti" is the Greek term for "Against" therefore anti-Americanism is an abstract way of saying that you are "Against America" - meaning in opposition to America. If you are against communists you are anti-communist if you are against America you are anti-American. Simple really. American agents had multiple schemes to assasinate Fidel Castro. They were anti-Castro. Castro resented this therefore he was anti-American. Simple. Colin4C (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of the options are not about the definition but what we include on the page. Unless we decide what this page is about we cn never really have any structure. Do we have things that RS have called anit-american or things that edds think are anti-american. Is it about anti-americans, anti-americanism or both?Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should all do some reading on the extensive scholarly literature on anti-Americanism! Hopefully things here will take a constructive turn now that the most recent sock-puppet of User:Bsharvy has seemingly taken a break from trying to wreck this article. His masquerades here used to be quite amusing but he has been very tiresome of late. Anyway, I do hope him a happy retirement...Colin4C (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I did report an editor here as a possible sock of Bshary and User:Life.temp[17] However, Slatersteven said I "tried to get another user blocked in a way that smacked of harassment.... it smacks of harrisment, you are trying to get him blocked for A, using proccess B.... Yes there are similarities, but nothing that would make me think they are the same".[18] If you have any information about sockpuppets editing this article then you should report it to SPI. TFD (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

We tried that a year or two ago with one of Bsharvy's sockpuppets called "Lifetemp" I think (there are so many Bsharvy socks it is hard to recall them all). Unfortunately Bsharvy proved more than equal to his "harrasers" and managed the awesome feat of getting an admin - who had the misfortune to get involved in the case - permanantly banned. Bsharvy is VERY dangerous and will routinely turn the tables on those who try to "out" him. I recall that he got great pleasure from mocking the banned admin on his talk page ever after. After "Lifetemp" himself was outed I tried to get the banned admin reinstated to no avail. Draw your own conclusions. I myself have no axe to grind - I added an uncontroversial sentence to this article a few years ago and got drawn into the whole sorry melodrama of battling against a dozen or more of Bsharvy's socks against my will. I have my own ideas about who "Bsharvy" and his socks are, but I am sick and tired of this whole farrago after losing count of Bsharvy's socks and being routinely personally attacked for trying to defend the integrity of the wikipedia. He knows the wikipedia rules inside out and everytime he is banned he comes straight back. Look at the history of this site above for the whole sorry story. The cowardly admins are afraid of Bsharvy so routinely refuse to act even though it is a DOCUMENTED FACT that Bsharvy's socks have been attacking this article for the last three years. There must be a list of them somewhere. I can only remember a few, called: Berated3, Bshanvy, Bsnarvy, Chudov, Life.temp, Nosuperpower, Rachel63 and Rpark317 but I think there were a lot more. Just look at the history of this page to see in grisly detail how each of these has been detected and banned only for a reincarnation to appear the next day. Colin4C (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

... None of which seems to answer the original Q? —Zujine|talk 21:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Canadian Anti-Americanism section

I think including Cdn anti-Americanism is legit, and that the paragraph - although perhaps a bit brief - does a reasonable job of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.57.148 (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The concept of Canadian Anti-Americanism is highly questionable. In sociological terms, the social values of English Canada largely resemble the northern tier of states within the U.S. The extent of Anti-Americanism in Canada reflects the cultural divide between Red States and Blue States. Canadians are about as Anti-American as American liberals and Northerners are within the U.S. That is, Canadian Anti-Americanism is a partisan conservative talking point, not a sociological phenomenon.

Canadians do distinguish themselves from Americans as being more caring, more respectful of diversity, and having a more socially open society vis-a-vis the U.S. This position is very much a political conceit rather than a political reality, but this position is not "fear and envy" as Johnathan Kay puts it. American liberalism on health-care, gay rights, reproductive rights, etc., has been more successful in Canada than in the U.S. This is not Anti-Americanism.

I suggest you drop the punditry talking points from authors such as Jonathan Kay and Larry Zolf, who have their own political agendas to follow, and leave the discussion to the authors that have been peer-reviewed. The following sub-section within the Canadian Anti-Americanism section should simply be deleted:

" Journalists Brendon O'Connor & Martin Griffiths state in their book Anti-Americanism that they would at first glance think that Canadians seem as likely as other to embrace characteristics that are characterised as anti-American. O'Conner and Griffiths include such actions as criticising Americans as a people, or the US as a country as being anti-American often demonising, denigrating and resorting to stereotypes. They have also written that the Anti-Americanism found in Canada had unique qualities, no where else has it been so entrenched for so long, nor so central to the political culture of Canada. Canadian columnist Larry Zolf has written that "anti-Americanism is a core part of the Canadian identity since Day One of this country."[48] But American columnist Jonathan Kay thinks Canadian anti-Americanism can be viewed as less virulent and asserts that Canadian Anti-Americanism is a mixture of fear and envy.[49] "

To reiterate, none of the above-quoted material matches academic research into the Canadian identity.

As for the remainder of the section, the early historical development of a separate English Canadian identity can be left as written. Thereafter, a transitional statement to the contemporary period is needed. The positions held by academics such as Kim Nossal and Jerry Granatstien can also be left as written. I am not familiar with John Thompson and Stephen Randall's book, but the statement is consistent with academic research.

Chislinghurst (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Although there is a Brendan O'Connor who is a journalist and writes about anti-Americanism (see: Brendan O'Connor (journalist)), the O'Connor in the article is a political scientist who edited a series of books on anti-Americanism that were published in the academic press.[19] I will remove the "journalist" description and look for the source in his writing. The humorous and polemical writings of columnists have no place in this article except where they are reported in academic writing, and I will remove them. The article should represent how the subject is understood in the literature and you could help improve it by ensuring that it does this. The theory that Canadians share the same values as Americans in the northern states is only one view used by people comparing the two countries, and certainly Canadian liberalism is similar to U. S. liberalism. But toryism and socialism in Canada are usually seen as having no U. S. counterpart, and these are considered to be the main groups that have been anti-American. TFD (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for promptly considering my POV on the subject, and your compromise on the section is quite fair.

Chislinghurst (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

POV tags

As there is no discussion section that explains what is POV about the article and how to repair it, I will remove the tags. TFD (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thier old.Slatersteven (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm adding it back. You said as a reply to a comment below that we need to take the concept as a form of prejudice a priori. But the term is contentious, taken by some US supporters to mean "irrational and incorrect hostility" and by other critics as "the expression of grievances against US action". Today, the latter explains it as an expression against US imperialism, the former either negates that imperialism or presents it as desirable. The article mustn't define a phenomenon when sources are providing multiple interpretations: The different interpretations from appropriate sources need to be addressed instead. That is neutrality. The initial or general sections seem better, but it gets less neutral with the regional parts and the extensive part on the Arab and Persian world, for example, with its emphasis on Qutb (which is used to introduce al-Qaeda), religious motivation, abstract conceptions, and not making distinctions or relations between pre-modern incarnations and current international affairs makes a move (whether intended or not) to minimize or sideline more material, political, massive and historical causes for "anti-American" movements or their variety, using these side notes to explain "excuses". The term itself is something mainly used in the US, but it can't be disassociated from the actions and initiatives that give rise to it outside (or inside) it. On that note, some accounts on the active parts of the creation of the term need be addressed. Who the proponents of using the term are and why they may be motivated to group others as "anti-American", which itself tends to be derisive. There's also the unsigned comment below, plus many other comments in the 28 pages of history. Death to one-page memory! Who is like God? (talk) 09:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of the United States

Is it appropriate to redirect Criticism of the United States here?Smallman12q (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Looks like that is indeed the current re-direct. My first thought is that this is inappropriate, in so far as it equates criticism of the US with anti-Americanism. Anti-Americans are certainly a subset of those critical of the US, but obviously a belief that certain policies or aspects of the US are foolish/misguided/whatever and ought to be rectified can co-exist with a broad affinity for the US. --CAVincent (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What the subset constitutes and when to apply it is subject to interpretation. So where does the line go? Must critics also send blessings to the US or else be damned as biased or too extreme? If anything, "anti-Americanism" as a term is the US (or US ally) perspective on criticisms of the US and its policies, especially when it doesn't want to hear them. But as a phenomenon or object to study it refers to the criticism. Supposedly, for a stance to be acceptable it must be justified. That leaves the question whether an "irrational" stance may be justified by the circumstances, but that's something political and not for us editors to determine. In a term there are two things at least, those who emit it and its object. It gets more complicated when the object has a voice, of course. The cleanest solution to POV and interpretation issues here may be to use a more neutral title and to include "anti-Americanism" there as the way the US (or its "establishment") sees criticism against it. And this is not a dictionary, so we shouldn't be defining "anti-American" (creating an article around the term itself) except in the process of dealing with a phenomenon described in the topic. Who is like God? (talk) 09:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As an American, I certainly acknowledge a gaping chasm of difference between Anti-Americanism and criticism of the US. Any -ism implies something that is part of a person's ideology, as in a defining characteristic of the individual's beliefs... if you could describe an individual as Anti-American then they are. But you can't describe everyone with a criticism of the US as Anti-American. For example you could describe Hugo Chavez as a proponent of Anti-Americanism, but Nicolas Sarkozy has criticized US policy before but could not credibly be referred to as a proponent of Anti-Americanism. --Cabazap (talk) 02:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I would not call Chavez "Anti-American". What has he said which would qualify him as "Anti-American"? All of his critical statements are obviously directed at the US government's behavior and actions (particularly actions of GW Bush administration). I have never heard him once insult American people. Poyani (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The lead sentence of the article reads, "The term Anti-Americanism, or Anti-American Sentiment, refers to broad opposition or hostility to the people, policies, culture or government of the United States."

In the Latin America section, the article says, "One of the most vocal of these leaders has been Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, who is known for his strong opposition towards the American government, particularly the administration of George W. Bush, driving him to vilify the latter in many ways, including referring to him as "el diablo" (the devil) before the opening of the United Nations General Assembly in 2006.[119] He has clearly stated his intent to use Venezuela's oil resources as a card 'against the toughest country in the world, the United States.'". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Since the sources do not refer to anti-Americanism, I will remove them (Morales too). TFD (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Anti-westernism or third-worldism as its known should be included in this article

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Why exactly? --Cabazap (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems like a logical point. Negative attitudes towards US policy can be directly related to or caused by similar negative attitudes towards more global attitudes towards developed nations, either as a truly 'anti' position or merely as a cricital attitude.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality?

This article seems to put all criticism and critics of the US in a negative sense. Also, for several critics (and reasonable arguments) against an injustices done by Americans, there exists another unrelated reason justifying the action, or that tries to direct the anti-American sentiment to another source. For example, in the Japan section

"The ongoing U.S. military presence in Okinawa remains a contentious issue in Japan." and "objections to the behavior and presence of American military personnel are sometimes reported as anti-Americanism, such as the 1995 Okinawan rape incident." these lines are followed by "While protests have arisen over specific incidents, they are often reflective of deeper historical resentments."

A strong reaction to a rape in 1995 does not necessarily constitute a reaction due to pent-up feelings of discrimination and resentment against Americans. However, by allowing such phrasing to be juxtaposed, one is led to believe that the Americans have been dealt a great injustice over the fact that the Japanese are unable to reconcile historic grievances with current events.

The section "Middle East and North Africa" is also of questionable neutrality, often portraying the US as a innocent bystander who is taking an onslaught of "baseless" criticism from one-dimensional people and nations bent on the complete destruction of everything that is remotely American. Nearly all sources of anti-American sentiment listed are attributed to bigotry, racism, ignorance, ungratefulness, or religious fundamentalism; in effect, this gives off the message that only such peoples are anti-American, even though there are many less negative causes for anti-American sentiment in nations (for example, Native Americans who were driven off their land and almost into extinction by American expansionism).In all cases, America is the victim of baseless criticism that is petty and somewhat laughable.

Although the facts of this articles are not being debated, the overall tone and bias most certainly are a point of contention. In order to balance this article in terms of neutrality and tone, a section devoted to causes of anti-Americanism should be created, and well-placed so readers will have a reasonable chance of acquiring objective, well-rounded information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.222.6 (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism goes beyond dislike of American actions or culture. TFD (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This should be about what people hyave called anti-americanism. As such why they belive that may be of relevance, but not why poeple dislike america.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

As I understand the lead section, this article is about broad opposition or hostility to the people, policies, culture or government of the United States. Is it being alleged that this does not accurately describe some article content (what content?). Is it being suggested that this be changed (to what?). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Buzzword

This is just a U.S. political buzzword used to quickly polarize any debate into a case of "us vs them". Despite it's overuse, I don't really think it deserves the credence it's given here. It seems like every second word out of a U.S. political campaigner's mouth is "anti-American" and yet their use of it is almost meaningless. Do we really want to peddle such biased "America uber alles" propaganda here as if it's neutral (which it clearly isn't)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.142.230 (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

File:BarackObamaToy03.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:BarackObamaToy03.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of "anti-American"

Anti-American means nothing and everything.

Any criticism of the United States is anti-american? If a concept includes everything is it a concept? What is not anti-american? The culture section and canadian section are ridiculous. There has to be something connecting a critical statement about the United States to "anti-americanism" other than the word "anti-american." This whole article should be erased and transferred to the fiction section. `` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckistani (talk • contribs) 20:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anti-ethnic_and_anti-national_terms If this article has to go, all the others has to follow. Which means : the article will stay.--Red-fox.lv (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you would have a point if anyone actually cared about Lusophobia or Anti-Canadianism. But they don't. The US, on the other hand... You actually have a point though in that many of them have the whiff of propaganda. Detmcphierson (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"Any criticism of the United States is anti-american?", look at the europe part, which basicly implies that opposition to the invasion of iraq in 2003 in anti-americanism, so according to this article yes Any criticism of the United States is anti-american134.3.76.108 (talk) 08:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it says that the war fed anti-Americanism, not that opposition to the war was anti-Americanism. TFD (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe its a parody?

Yes, yes re: "Buzzword." This article reads like propaganda for American high school students written by high school students. Or maybe its an elaborate parody? Detmcphierson (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Among many a contentious statement

"Anti-Americanism has risen in Pakistan as a result of U.S. drone attacks on the country introduced by George W. Bush and continued by Barack Obama.[68][69] In a poll surveying opinions towards the United States, Pakistan scored as the most anti-American nation, jointly alongside Serbia"

The poll, if I'm reading the article and its sources correctly did NOT ask people how anti-American they were, but instead whether they thought the USA had a positive or negative affect on the world. Countries holding strongly negative opinions in this regard may have alternative local perspectives due to cultural reasons, historical grievances or differences in education. They may in fact have a more valid attitude towards the overall influence of the USA or they may have a biased attitude but none of this constitutes outright anti-americanism and none of it is actually confirmable from a poll that doesn't ask the question outright. I would suggest replacing 'anti-americanism' in both of these instances with 'negative opinions towards US influence' and perhaps even a strong disclaimer that this does not constitute anti-americanism.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"In Greece At the demonstration commemorating the 17th of November Uprising there is a march towards the US embassy to emphasize the US backing of the Greek military junta of 1967–1974 attended by thousands of people each year."

Sorry but this has to be a joke. I mean, it comes right off the heels of a statement about some 8-10 undescribed attacks against undescribed American companies in Europe (what kind of companies, why were they attacked, etc.?) but this is a clear cut case of a real historical grievance / remembrance of one and has no bearing on even the attitudes of the individuals who even partake in the march. Maybe their modern attitude is 'American Foreign policy was bad back then. We're glad the country was positive enough to change so we're going to go to the embassy and quietly remember the negative past.' But what is more important here is that this is just as valid an assumption as the idea that this demonstrates a negative attitude towards the USA.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)