Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 29

Other Reasons to Dislike America--- as in the USA

"Personally, I dislike the USA for many reasons. I think the violent crime rate, and the crime rate, I think they are both much too high. Secondly, I think the extreme costs associated with education and healthcare are both way too high. The quality of the healthcare and the quality of US education is also suspect. This country also have a drug problem (both with illicit drugs and also with FDA approved drugs... the clinical trials process is flawed). I think this country also has a major problem with obesity. And I think the age of consent is way too high, and I think informed consent is hogwash. I also think this nation has a problem with its legal structure. I think the concept of a fair and speedy trial is nonexistant, and I think due process is ridiculous. This country may also have a problem with guns, and a lack of gun control. When I say too high, I mean too high compared to other major developed first world nations. Anyone can verify all this by reading The Economic Report of the President, which goes over many great statistics about our nation compared to many other foreign nations. Sometimes I can't believe that anyone lives here. Lastly, I find it completely ridiculous that everyone claims that the Federal Government every time it tries to give us something, like a public good or service, that everyone starts bitching about socialism and communism and how terrible it/that is... can't we at least print shit out for free at our public libraries?! What is wrong with the USA and it's people? Oh, and doesn't this country spend a bit too much on its Department Of Defense?? Who in the world would have approved the reckless spending campaign that the USA Congress has approved, that's written by the President of the United States of America? Who? I think Britney Spears wouldn't have spent as much as Bush and others that have run up the US Total Government Debt Outstanding up to nearly 9 Trillion dollars! Ridiculous! This country spends billions daily on wars against Afghan Mountains but won't even fix up its national interstate highways! Absurd! Lastly, I think capital gains tax is much too high compared with e.g. The United Kingdom. Also Sar-Box, aka Sarbanes-Oxley is totally infuriating. I'm AntiAmerican sometimes." (Comment by Andrew G. Bernhardt)

Obsession With America

It seems that anti-Americanism doesn't come in varying degrees.72.194.119.243 00:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)John D.

General

A very good piece, in my opinion. Many compliments to the writer. S.M.

American Interventionism

This paper should mention american intervention in the internal and regional politics of other countries as a source for anti-american setniments. The overthrowing of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953 by american agents, and the 60s and 70s CIA assasanations are just some examples, and are in my opinion directly linked to anti-american feelings. More general the article seems heavily biased, and gives the impression that anti-americanism is almost always psychological symptom of something else, when in fact there are cases where anti-american sentiment is to some degree justified.

We already have an article about opposition to U.S. foreign policy. By the way, the overthrow of Mossadegh was a joint operation with the U.K. Is there an article called "anti-Britishism" that mentions this operation? --BrianMDelaney 17:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It was so British, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was broken up and replaced with American oil corporations Shah were American... LamontCranston 11:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. It was a British initiative, and the U.S., an ally, agreed to help. Try reading some history. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-08-12 07:49 07:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Foreign policy does not wholly explain anti-Americanism, hence the separate article. There is an article specific to Anglophobia, but that does not encompass all of UK, just the English. You can always create one though...Zildjianrulez 13:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Opinion Poll section in the Middle East

Just one minor complaint, in the opinion poll on middle east attitudes I don't see what relevance opinions on Jews have to anti-Americanism. I can understand the Christian statistics perhaps being relevant, but the Jewish statistics, whilst interesting, have no direct relevance to anti-Americanism. blankfrackis 15:35, 05 February 2007 (UTC)

The main reason of anti-Americanism in the Middle East is because of the absolute support of US government to a Jewish state there, against all international laws and morals. Most people in the Middle East who carry opinions against US are also aware of the number of Jewish leaders, politician and policy makers in the US government. There is great and growing sentiment against the existance of Israel and by being so pro-Jewish, US gets it's share. That's it. The anti-Americanism in the Middle East has nothing to do with Christianity and very little to do with Jewism as a religion but as a social entity (which is so openly invasive and inhuman in so many ways). Sorry for the hard words but that's the fact; every child the Israeli forces kill creates new supporters of anti-Americanism. (Btw, I'm not Muslim and I do not think any government is better than the other, I just believe we have to face the facts).- Eray from Turkey

Sources?

"The French Revolution, seen by some as influenced by the American Revolution,..." Can we get any sources on this?~~LtDoc~~

A number of assertions throughout are lacking citations and furthermore loaded, such as concerning perceived causes of Anti-Americanism. Citations might relieve the loading, but also sentence structure such as: "This exposed previously isolated countries to the spread of the English language and American popular culture. A process that some have labeled Cultural imperialism despite the fact it is driven by consumer choice." I have edited that paragraph to read: "This exposed previously isolated countries to the spread of the English language and American popular culture, a process that some have labelled Cultural Imperialism despite the role played by consumer choice." Even this is not ideal but as I don't have sources I won't mess any more. I have flooded the paragraph and a couple of others with {{Fact}} tags. --Dom

11/14/06 changes to "Regional Attitudes: Middle East"

I'm curious whether the most recent edit to the 'Middle East' section is based on the survey the article was citing or not:

The change was from, "Hatred of the US is strong in some foreign countries, especially those that are strongly Islamic. In such countries, the anti-Americanism is often paired with broad support and admiration for Osama Bin Laden."

to, "However most of these countries showed a marked distinction between negative perceptions of the United States, and much less negative of Americans."

I read the Pew Research survey and number one, it is a survey about Muslim attitudes towards Westeners, not specifically Americans, (and vice versa of Westerners towards Muslims) and number two, it states support for Osama bin Laden in muslim countries is from 24% to 60%, so I don't know why the author edited out everything about support for OBL.

It also states, "large percentages in nearly every Muslim country attribute several negative traits to Westerners - including violence, immorality and selfishness," so that is about the people and not the country, as opposed to what the edit states.

Ridiculous

Absolutely ridiculous! Anti-Americanism. You should never be anti any country, ethnic grouup, religion and so on! By the way, a lot of the media (not all) that us folks in Canada watch is American. Some people who hate Americans like to listen to American music or watch American movies. There are girls that love Brad Pitt and George Clooney or some other good looking guy, yet they hate Americans?! Ridiculous. I have met many nice people in that country and how dare a country like Canada, who supposedly is a tolerant and accepting country, say things against other countries. Who's going to be there when there is an attack on us? Our army is certainly not powerful enough to fight on their own. The USA will be there at our side. Also to any Canadians out there, our governments in the past have not always been the best either, so who are we to say anything? Go America!

Tito A. Martinez

PS This is coming from a Canadian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.112.218 (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Whoa, dude, calm down. Everybody's entitled to an opinion. If someone's anti-American, that's just their opinion. No need to fight about it or get nationalistsic.

Yes and no. The USA did some very deplorable things, or was accused of. It's very ok to dislike if you have good reasons. It's not ok to hold things against a people (generaly), but you can toward a governement.

And that is no excuse to be uncritical of the USA under the weasel pretext that bad guys are out to get us. Do we have to close our eyes on the evil done by somes americans? Evil is evil, no matters the reason given for.

Ok first not all Canadians are anti american, which is what it seems like your saying (guy up top) and secondly Anti American doesnt necessarily mean you hate anything american made or anyone american born. I'm canadian, and well, on American television and movies canadians are made fun of a lot. Whilst on canadian programming....nothing discerning the USA. Unless the show frequently does this. You also make yourself sound to be an american trying to make the USA sound better.

Check the IP, accuser. That would be quite a trick to make it look like it was Canada. 68.229.201.181 18:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is quite easy to make yourself look like you are from another country. I appear to be from Korea now. 219.241.43.250 03:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah and the USA has good bands that's why someone who is anti-american may listen. I mean take the project called "Rock against Bush" this included many bands such as NOFX(American), Rise Against(American), The Offspring(American). Many people consider themselves "Anti American" because they disagree with the war, and George Bush, etc. That is why if you're anti american you would listen to american music. Shazaam info! (RiseAgainst01 00:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

Sorry guys, this is not a soapbox. There is such a thing as anti-americanism, so an encyclopedia has to describe it. That's the only purpose here. DirkvdM 17:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, wikipedia is not a soap box, although the talk page can be... I just want to point out though, that while the existence of the concept of anti-americanism is undoubtedly true, the existence itself is more questionable. 204.52.215.68 16:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not canadian and have little idea about anti-americanism in Canada. But, for sure, anti-americanism exist in Latin America, where I'm from. Talking from this point, as latin and sociologist, I can understand the mention of an institutional concept of antiamericanism as a sentiment about all-northamerican-people... But this, simply, its just a relatively minor and less relevant phenomena. There isn't in Wikipedia an article about prejudices of chilean over bolivian people, nor about prejudices bolivian over chilean people, and both FOR SURE exists. Particular expressions of nationalist prejudices doesn't require an own article. Antiamericanism does... Why? because isn't about northamerican people, but about US foreign policy. In latinamerica during the 70's, nearly every one famous speech against US state clearly that latinamericans doesn't hate US people, but his government, his great firms, etc. In many cases, this was accompanied with support messages to workers, or black, or indians, or other social movements in the USA.

Other phenomena clearly distinguish antiamericanism from nationalist prejudices. In modern history, nationalist prejudices are strongly correlated with right wing politics, with argueable but minor exceptions dued to specific historic contingencies (such spanish republican anti-moor sentiment encouraged against auxiliar nationalist forces). At least in latin america (I'm tryng to keep my affirmations here, but I truly believe they apply widely) antiamericanism isn't only widespread, but's absolutely transversal to politic identification (and to not politic identification).

So, I doesn't see antiamericanism as a so "ridiculous" problem, and I think in the article is depicted like a phenomena about irrational attitudes who is not. Also think the "americas" section it's highly euphemistic. Antiamericanism in Latinamerica it's, (and I'm referring to clearly established facts) related to; sistematic support to state terrorism and sistematic intromission in domestic affairs during cold war and after it. Just in Chile (my country) are many terrorist acts and direct interventions who where perpetrated, according to CIA files, by the US. Saying "US support for dictators such as Augusto Pinochet" or "Support for the 1973 Chilean coup d'état" sounds like diplomatic decissions, and are obviously euphemistic. IsmaelPR 06:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody nominate this article for 'weasel words' as mentioned above its euphemistic or biased in sections more than its should be or a disputed topic. Expressing a negative opinion about a topic isn't automatically rascist or discrimination though it may be and generally this article appears to support the american views by quoting rascism,which is ridiculious onsidering america's large quantity of ethic minorities, and ignoring the main argument of bad US foreign policy. To the first comment on this section, a)Having a large army and supporting a country in the past isn't automatically good, refering to the america supported governments in South America, the Pacific and the middle East where elected perefectly harmeless governments have been ousted and replaced by military coups. b)the US isn't god it has screwed up and pointing this out doesn't making you a rascist or xenophobic. 124.187.216.62 00:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

About it being ridiculous that you on one hand "hate America" and on the other hand consume American culture...

One can "hate" the government but "love" the culture. One can "foreign policy" the attitudes but "love" the people. This looks to me like a case of false dilemma, just like when president Bush said "either your with us, or against us". America is a HUGE country compared to say Sweden where I live. The total population of Sweden is about the same as 1 (!) big city in USA and the land area is that of one state...like California I think. The people of sweden has many things in common but is at the same time incredibly diverse, and if Sweden is like that then what is not USA? Because of this I cannot say I "hate" USA. The government, the people, the culture, plain everything, with my whole soul. It just wouldnt be fair.

However, I do strongly oppose the American foreign policy which according to me just wastes American tax payers money, feed greedy coroporations, kill innocent people and most important of all: create a massive chasm in the world between USA + allies and the rest of the world. Indirectly because of this I despice the current President and government and inderictly because of this I dislike the people in USA in general for electing Bush, twice... As I see it, a person should only be judged by what he does.

And as for American culture...I like a large part of it. Most games are produced in USA and so is movies, which are two big interests for me. Consuming American culture and despicing American foreign policy at the same time is NOT hipochracy.

Oh, and the article should be revised since it looks too much like it has been written on Conservapedia... --Sachaztan 13:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You can be anti or distasteful to anything and be given the right to do so. Keep in mind that everyone coincides oneself to a group no matter how big or small, either it be religion and beliefs, ethnic background, politics, favours in modern society (e.g. advocating the idea of banning firearms) or even something as small as your taste of music etc. You just have to get over the fact that whatever you believe in (be it, Robbie Williams is a great musician) inetivably someone else will have an opposite view. Its just the same as my anti-American sentiments, because it is my belief, my mind, my reasoning, my problem. I have reasons for being against, just like you do so for being for it. There should not be any turmoil in the midst of it.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make him drink it." I think that applies to my feeling.Cobine 21:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Headlines + snobbery

I think we should revisit the headlines; a lot of the level fours don't make sense where they are and we jump between a chronology and isolated ideas.

I also don't know about "Snobbery." At present it's just seems a means to get a Fawlty Towers quote on the page. Marskell 18:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I;m pro American but..

i drive a japanese car

I wear clothes made in China

And eat Mexican & Chinese Food

??????

Angry Aspie 02:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Does it really contradict, though?

USA

The anti American article is perfect. I understand why other countries hate the USA. The USA is bias, and does anything in the name of freedom and democracy whilst having other motives. It is just like the United States article, completely staged and at such a slant as to make any propaganda look fair. - --Margrave1206 18:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing somthing here? Is that your opinion above or are you being sarcastic? I've seen you edit this article. Have you got a personal axe to grind? 68.229.201.181 04:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The entire US? All 300 million Americans sharing the same bias? That's impossible. Signature^brendel 22:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The US is bias? Speak English good... I didn't think that wikipedia was a vehicle for other nation's inferiority complexes... I could be wrong though.--Rotten 08:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WP is not a soapbox. Please contribute to the discussion of improving the article. Thanks.--Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 04:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I know this isn't the right place for this, but I'd like to say one thing: I am American, and I completely agree with you Margrave. Too often, the United States acts in its own self-interest while championing "freedom and democracy". In our defense, though, I'd like to point out, that most of these policies are instituted by our completely out-of-control government, and are despised by millions of Americans. Only a moderate percentage of Americans are the self-centered, hypocritical cowboys our government makes us out to be. Sloverlord 03:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sloverlord. Ps. Kirb wp is used as a soapbox and worst, many articles are bias. --Margrave1206 04:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Since we're on a SOAPBOX, the Wiki antiAmerican article is used as a rant page for nonAmericans. Wiki should be ashamed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.229.204.129 (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

You're right of course... geniuses like Margrave ("USA is bias") as well as pro-Americans rant on here. But in the articles, just edit them where you see fit. I and some other intelligent Wikipedians are watching these little bastards closely, making sure their bile doesn't seep into any worthwhile pages (like the US page).--Rotten 09:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Rotten, the USA page worhtwhile? If Goebbels worked for the USA it would have been his best work. --Margrave1206 20:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So Rotten seems to be very concerned with how America is being treated on Wikipedia. He constantly brings up something about an "inferiority complex" or something like that. Yet he goes on to mock and belittle other users based on their spelling and grammer. Wikipedia exists internationally in case you didn't know. Also in case you didn't know, those people are entitled to their own opinions, and those opinions are worth just as much as yours. You attacking them based on their grammitical shortcomings gives people reason alone to be anti-american based on your actions. Lead by example my friend. It is clear you regard the US as the greatest nation in the world, so just remember you represent it and others might judge you based on things you say. You go on to say that you(and several others) are greatly intelligent, and you must keep an eye these fabled, "Little Bastards" to see if they write anything you don't approve of. What you are saying here is that you are inherently smarter than others on this issue, and anyone else is poison to what is otherwise good. What is good? You cited "the US page" as being good. Typical of the attitudes people who dislike America often cite, in my opinion.

I am not anti american. I am pro-open mind, and anti-jerk. Open mind doesn't mean accept everything regardless of anything. It means think for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. I do not agree with some things the U.S government is currently doing and I don't agree with many things they've done in the past. All the same, I understanding hatred against a nation is unjust based on those things. You are the only one who's talking about an inferiority complex, and it seems to be your general rebuttle to anything anti-american. I am not saying all anti american sentiments are just, but many of them are founded in something. By immediately treating every anti-US sentiment as inferiority complex, you only come off as being arrogant and unable to think. All things considered it looks more to me(I could be wrong) like you have a superiority complex. You love your country and that is fantastic(this is not sarcastic). Just keep an open mind, and don't be a dick. Cheers, g4cubeguy@hotmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.189.212 (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

"...just remember you represent it and others might judge you based on things you say..." That would make you anti-Rotten if you have a problem with what he says. Not anti-American unless you are a narrow-minded dick (as you put it) and base your whole perception of a country on Rotten's comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.229.204.129 (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Canadians

I do not have the time to read this all the way through, but is there anything concerning Canadian Anti-Amercanisim or whatever. Just thought that should be put up, for obvious reasons.

I've tried, but when you put something that is clearly mindless hatred against Americans, having nothing to do with foreign policy, some regular editors remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.229.204.129 (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Maybe some Canadians are anti-american because of people like you, who assume that any sort of criticism is completely unfounded and is simply an inferiority complex. Open your mind, open your brain, open your eyes.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.189.212 (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Who is talking founded or unfounded? The purpose of the article is to show antiAmericanism, not justify everything anti-American. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.229.204.129 (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Wasn't the purpose of wikipedia initially as a resource for information? To say that Anti-Americanism exists is obvious. To justify it seems right to me, I mean obviously if it was all baseless then such a large amount of the world wouldn't feel anti-american, if only to a small extent in many allied countries. So if there are reasons, then shouldn't they be stated? I'll agree that much ("Death to America!") is a litte drastic, but some ("Americans can be so arrogant!") has some basis. Admittedly not all Americans are arrogant, but enough are to be worth mentioning, don't you think? 24.86.59.67 03:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism is against the Country that likes that name, not the 2 continents. being against Canadians is Anti-Canadianism <i'm not, i'm talkin 2 one right now ha>

In Canada the only people anti usa

In Canada the only people ive heard of being Anti-USA are in Quebec, since they have that thing about them being French, and having being dragged into Anglosaxon culture.

Latin America Section

I plan to expand the Latin American Section. Here are two NON RS V sources listing events that lead to Latin American anti Americanism.

List One

List Two

I propose to include 20 - 25 of the most significant. I also feel that the 64 Canal Zone riots should be covered Martyrs'_Day and maybe even touch on the Rivera murals at Rockefeller Center in the 30's Link

IYHO, what events are notable enough for inclusion? Thanks - Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Henry de Montherlant

I removed Henry_de_Montherlant from the Degeneracy thesis section. He was a 20th-century figure and seemed out of place and misleading in a section otherwise devoted to 18th-century opinions. Perhaps he would be relevant to another section of this article. --OinkOink 01:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Asia

In this section I'm removing the paragragh on the kidnapping of Martin and Gracia Burnham in the Phillipines. I don't see how this relates directly witht the topic at hand. The group is not aligned with the Phillipine Government nor did it express the kidnapping had anything to do with anti-american sentiment (in reality it may have but this point was not put into the paragraph). 21 January 2007 220.253.53.29 06:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Jealousy?

I know I will be flamed for this by the angry, reactionary denizens of Wikipedia, but just possibly could jealousy be a factor in anti-Americanism. Serious replies only, please.--Rotten 08:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps to some degree, but it doesn't account for the number of Americans who despise one or several things about the country, such as myself. RubyQ 18:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And, to be non-biased, perhaps all anti-ism's are tinged with a hint of jealousy? Or at least a few.--Rotten 09:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

On some level sure, but it definitely isn't the only (or even necessarily the primary) motivation. I think a lot of Americans would like to think it is, since it reinforces the smug and ethnocentric superiority we often like to have towards others and it makes it easy for us to dismiss any serious criticism of our culture. It's an easy out to say they are just jealous. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 09:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hold your horses, partner. I didn't say it was THE motivation. I said that perhaps, in some instances, it was a motivation. But yes, clearly you're right... my post implies that all criticism of America is pure jealously and nothing more.--Rotten 09:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

To Ungoverable: "it reinforces the smug and ethnocentric superiority we often like to have towards others"... Wow, you're making a lot of assumptions on what a lot of Americans think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.229.204.129 (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, I've lived in America for about two decades and I've been trained to critically observe people's cultural customs and beliefs. I think I'm in a pretty good position to make such a judgement. It's not an assumption; it is based on careful observations of American society, of which I'm a part. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 06:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

TWO DECADES?? Oh my, you're the most qualified person around. You probably think polls are facts. 68.229.201.181 03:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sure some people are jealous of the USA. However the old world is not the one trying to define itself in the image of the British empire. Nor does the old world have to diminish the past glories of others to uplift itself. Some hide behind constitutions whilst doing all manner of justified iniquity. I must say that this article is at least fair than most. However it still needs more info. --Margrave1206 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

See market dominant minorities, for one look at this.

I would personally say that jealousy usually has an object over-and-above the parties involved; if I'm jealous of somebody, I'm actually jealous of something they have that I don't. But then consider that the average European has a better quality of life than the average American. What's to be jealous of? Inferior American health care? The average non-Western doesn't have a better quality of life, of course, but then the jealousy of the non-Westerner is directed at the West in general, and not at America particularly.

"Resentment", rather than "jealousy", is probably a better description: many resent American foreign policy as being unilateral etc., even if they aren't necessarily jealous of the average American. The one thing that people might both resent and be jealous over is American military capability (it is peerless, after all); but look at the present screw-ups with the use of American military capability and "they are all jealous" ceases to make sense...

Oh, and no one add any of what has been discussed under this thread to the article without a source. OK? Marskell 21:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you the Wiki watch editor of this article? (I don't know what term to call it) Why did you remove the internal link to Carolyn Parrish and the Gatas Parliament and "Stupid American" videos? I just want to know your reasoning and why they shouldn't be added by Wiki policy. I am confused about it.

"but then the jealousy of the non-Westerner is directed at the West in general, and not at America particularly" - the US is the most iconic western nation. When an individual resents the west they resent the US, when they envy the west they envy the US. The US represents the western world as it is the largest western nation and being jealous of the west may in the minds of many translate into jealousy of the US. Signature^brendel 21:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that within wealthy nations, there exists some jealousy that exhibits itself as anti-Americanism... although they might not be resentful of our wealth, they are jealous of our power, visibility, influence, and achievements. Some anti-ism might go back the other way and it may be due to jealous on American's part... but not as much. So in short, I disagree.--Rotten 20:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain if it is mentioned in the article or not, but it is definately worth mentioning as a potential factor. Keep in mind there are many anti-american sentiments all over the planet, and jealousy could in several places be feasable. I don't think its possible to prove, but worth mentioning...

(resert indent) Sure, jealousy is definitely one of the causes of Anti-Americanism. It's not just America, people envy the EU, Japan and Australia as well. All wealthy nations are envied and the US is the highest profile 1st world nation. Jealousy should definitely be mentioned in this article-it does need to be referenced of course. Signature^brendel 00:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not ever met someone who was jealous of Australia.--Margrave1206 01:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have. But what you or I have experienced is irrelevant -- what matters in WP is information that can be verified through reliable sources. Raymond Arritt 01:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it has anything to do with jealousy. I think it has to do with being the 'Big Dog' and what they've learned in their culture. I am more concerned about how Wiki editors decide what is and what isn't anti-American. How many editors of this article have been a victim of anti-Americanism?

The severe reaction of non-American's to the suggestion that a portion of anti-Americanism might be due to jealousy leads me to believe that it probably has something to do with jealousy, at least in part.--Rotten 20:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What's that. Are we jealous of your guns? Of your violence? Or what exactly? Of your President? And what has this to do with anti-americanism anyway. see WP:NOR, SqueakBox 21:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Accomplishments, power, influence, and visibility to name just a few. It's just a suggestion... but I'm sure I could scrounge up some research which supports my contention.--Rotten 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That woul;d be great, SqueakBox 22:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC) --Rotten 17:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to repeat that resentment is a much better word (and probably far easier to source) than jealousy. There is, for instance, a tremendous amount of resentment in the Mid. East (where I live) re: favouritism to Israel; the Iraq war; perceived American arrogance; a general sense that the reputation of Islam is taking a drubbing (many blame Al Queda and America, on that score).

But I have yet to meet the Gulf Arab who is jealous of America or Americans in the typical sense of the word. The development of an indigenous service sector is low (e.g., they travel abroad for much health care) but this aside, the quality of life in much of the Arabian Gulf (the supposed hottest of hotbeds regarding AA) is also equal to or better than the American; no need to be jealous of a swimming pool in an American backyard if you have your own.

If there's one place it might be apt, I would guess France—the loss of empire and prestige, and all that. Marskell 14:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Your loud protests on the subject speak volumes. I said nothing about quality of life and I don't think it's even quantifiable. One person's high quality of life is another person's low quality of life. I feel that while some AA is warranted, I think that resentment and jealousy both play a factor. I'm not going to add it though, I feel that it should be documented that their was dissension on this topic (although dissension isn't well tolerated on Wikipedia).--Rotten 17:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What loud protests? I'd suggest, that you're looking for "protests" and thus reading it in to the commentary. By all means, dissent away—my point is largely semantic, anyhow. Compare resentment and jealousy.

What does that prove? That there is support for both? It's a number of hits on a Google search function. It's a meaningless function. It does nothing to alter my fundamental point that jealousy may be a factor. --Rotten 19:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re the rest of it: happiness, perhaps, can't be quantified (I've read Nigerians are the happiest folks in the world, when surveyed) but quality of life is regularly measured. See Human Development Index, for instance (the US comes out pretty well, of course). I mentioned it because it seemed an obvious thing one might be of jealous... Marskell 17:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I restored the content you deleted since you so maturely refused to discuss with me. Don't remove it again unless you have Wiki rules to back it up. That's all I asked for in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.229.201.181 (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Well I never mentioned it... I think that most attempts to measure QOL are pointless and useless... people vote with their feet. But obvious US power and influence is pretty disproportional among individual nations and this might breed resentment (yes) and jealousy. --Rotten 19:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This thread started with a very general talking point and you received very general responses. Of course, resentment and jealousy go hand-in-hand; I was just teasing out the difference. The search doesn't prove anything; it suggests that resentment is more often discussed in relation to AA than is jealousy in scholarly works. And it's not a meaningless function if you actually want to scrounge up sources. Some of the sources on the page now were pulled from such searches. Marskell 20:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this discussion is much more interesting than the actual article (which is utterly useless in my opinion). I am inclined to believe that anti-Americanism is probably more resentment than jealousy (though there are almost certainly many who are envious of America's military and economic power).

I think some people are Anti American because tehy dont think American power and influence are a good thing, which isnt jealousy or resentment but political opinion, SqueakBox 16:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To call "jealous" a social phenomena so widely extended as antiamericanism it's and obvious psychologization of social problems, who fail to reach any methodological value. You can't understand social phenomena like a summatory of personal feelings. Resentmen, for same reasons, isn't a better option. I think many things in the article, and specially many opinions in this talk, try to imagine antiamericanism as an irrational sentiment, who's not. See my com in section "Ridiculous", please, about antimaericanism in latinamerica. I think I should have it placed here.IsmaelPR 17:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't social phenomenon psychological almost by definition? A society is a collection of individuals, each with their own unique psychology. If you find a high incidence of a particular psychological trait in some social group, it's fair to say that in a collective sense the group posesses that trait. Of course, that line of thinking opens the door to racism, etc, so you've got to be careful about how you define the group. But it's clear to me that the group of "people who exhibit anti-Americanism" have a high incidence of the traits you see in individuals who feel excluded, or perceive themselves as having a status lower then they deserve. Don't know if anyone can dig up a source on that, but it seems like an obvious idea -- must be something somewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TimSheehan (talk • contribs) 13:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Maybe envy is a better word for it. Is there a word halfway between envy and resentment? In any case, the situation with Bin Laden would be a good illustration. After the victory against the Soviets in Afghanistan -- with the U.S. providing assistance to his side, if not him directly -- he offers to protect the Saudis from the Iraqis in Kuwait. The Saudi king declines, turning to the Americans instead. It's at that point that OBL turns his attention to attacking the U.S. (and Saudi Arabia as well). That's also a good illustration of of the foreign policy issue -- perhaps U.S. policy does promote anti-Americanism, but not in the way many people think!

No... The social phenomenon aren't psychological, that's why psychologist doesn't design macrosocial theories or political policies except in little and defined areas. Social regularities can't be explained like a summary of individual traits because that's an obvious atribution to randomness of phenomenons who could be explained by social, material and historic variables. You can, if you wish, claim a genetic source for antiamericanism, but it will appear a little crazy for me, and others.IsmaelPR 07:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe for some

Anti-Usa isn't primarily on Jelousy since in the ex Soviet Union it was Ideology. In china anti -usa or american is again the likely hood of a communist regime ideology and competition. Jelousy has no due in it. In the middle east it's all about religion and us involved in forgein affairs in that sector. In Europe, Anti american is only vissible in Spain, Some parts of Easter Europe and much in Russia. In Africa it's usualy in Muslim connected countries. *If not correct me* Such countries, that have had the US having entered their countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, Lybia, and the Congo. Jelousy has nothing to do with in NOrth America since, visible Canada has few anti usa presentations. In Latin America many seem to dislike the USA in very recent years , about 4 years since becoming very strong. Venezuela and it's allies have shown opposition, having venezuela being the strongest. Reasons for Others are globalization, seeing products from the usa entering and shutting down home based products, like in Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, colombia, and throughout central america.

Useless Article

That's probably the only thing on this planet that myself and squeakbox would agree on, that this article is completely useless. It's a dumping ground for every anti-American person that stops by and wants to show, "Look at this, this is why we hate you!" and then editors try desperately to weave the snippits of nonsense these people added into something cohesive. It's too long, it jumps from one small subject to the next. It has a ridiculous amount of peer-reviewed articles that no one is actually going to click on. And mostly, some regular editors seem to think everything anti-American needs to be justified.

"...some people are anti-American because they don't think American power and influence" yadda yadda and so forth, whatever Right, I don't think Iranian power and influence is a good thing and I think the mindless hatred coming out of the Commonwealths has no other purpose but to encourage people who are killing in the name of that hate, but do you see me over on those articles showing them how much I despise them? No. That's the difference, those who want to glorify their hatred and those who don't. 68.229.201.181 18:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is hardly a useless article - the following is a typical example of how "anti-american" is used in news reports (its from the washingtonpost march 5 2007): A weeping man in eastern Afghanistan shouts anti-American slogans after violence that followed a bomb attack on a U.S. convoy. Notice that his grief and anger is characterized pejoratively as anti-american. Notice also how the the newspaper writer expertly left the "violence" abstract and disconnected from the people responsible for it. In fact the "violence" that the man suffered was due to american serviceman killing nearby civilians after they were car bombed. Now if an American were to be killed by an Iraqi and her friends or relatives screamed in bloody rage at Iraquis her screams would never be labelled anti-iraqui. This word "anti-american" is the product of the psychotic dream of america. Words don't always refer to things that exist - there is such a thing as phantasm or illusion. "Anti-americanism" is the alibi for americans who are to cowardly to look at the suffering that they create in others and instead magically transform it into the abstract "irrational" violence of "anti-americans".Canuckistani 04:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I expect no less from a 'Canuckistani'. :o) Guard our northerns borders from the hateful bigots. How's that for a response to your rant, "alibi for americans who are to cowardly to look at the suffering that they create" 68.229.201.181 02:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article is a must-have

I'm from a European country and EVERYBODY around me hates USA.. or at least they have negative feelings towards it... And I have travelled throughout Europe and I found this kind of feelings everywhere. And it all started somewhere after USA's war on/of terror. So this article isn't just someone's twisted imagination, this problem really exists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.142.51.41 (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

You must be about 12 years old then. I lived abroad before Iraq and before Bush and Euros practiced the same bigotry against Americans that they do now. But it was an uplifting comment. I hope you feel better now. They've raised you in their image, youngster. 68.229.201.181 02:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you all hate the US, especialy the Canadian below me. I feel reassured now that all is right with the world. Cheers--Looper5920 21:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You are confused. There is no doubt that many on this planet hate or dislike the usa - that doesn't mean that "anti-americanism" refers to anything. The word undoubtedly exists but the question is whether its referent does. For example we have the words "unicorn" or "darth vader" etc... "Anti-americanism" has a similar status except its domain is political. Hating the american policy of world domination through military intervention, capalistic exploitation etc... is not the same as "anti-americanism"; "anti-americanism" is an ideological term that short-circuits any criticism of the usa IN ADVANCE. So if I hate the usa because the usa has a history of continuously invading or otherwise interfering in the affairs of sovereign countries or enslaves my fellow humans through its corporate proxies, etc... (pick your poison here) then it's a reasonable hatred. Anti-americanism, on the other hand, is a word that wants to explain all hatred or violence towards the united states as if it were abstract or unreasonable, as if any ill-will toward the U.S. happened without taking into account the actions of the US in world. It is also a cheap self-serving word - the reason for "anti-americanism" is often supposed to be jealousy - by which supporters of america imagine that everyone on the planet wants their pile of junk. Supporters of america see "anti-americanism" everywhere even in the anguish of the people they torture: it is screen word, a lying word, a cowardly word that is used by those who will not look at the crimes they commit on or towards others.Canuckistani 15:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is

His not confused what ever you mingle on the world, the definition is having anti something, it's like the word racism, which is hate for a group of people by another person. Anti-Americanism is the hate of Americans and the country for many different reasons, usually feeling their #1, for being proclaimed a world power. *out of topic is the USA still the world power or is it china. It exist everywhere and in every continent. Im neutral.

Americans approve of torture

Good, referenced information such as the following has been stripped from this article. The following inclusion wasn't exaggerated but understated - because the Reliable Source reference states that surveys of Americans say they approve of torture!

"In recent years, America, American politicians eg Donald Rumsfeld [1] and Americans generally are increasingly portrayed as approving torture - eg [2]."

What does it take to keep good information in articles? PalestineRemembered 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Portrayed by who or what as approving of torture? I agree that the information ought to be reinserted, but I take issue with the word "portrayed", because it doesn't say who is portraying them and it doesn't make it clear if the portrayal is accurate. Asarelah 20:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

We are here to write an encyclopaedia. We are attempting to define a (supposedly) widely-held "cultural belief". Most of the article should be based on what (articulate) "anti-American" people claim about their belief, and about the factors which cause this belief. Whether the examples are true or not is irrelevant to the cultural phenomenon (and analysis would likely be partisan and not belong in the article anyway). When Americans are known to approve of torture, and "anti-Americans" refer to this as being a factor, this information should be in the lead. The article is currently written as if "anti-Americanism" is driven by some kind of mass hysteria, hallucination or mental illness. It's almost as if the article was written to preclude any form of rational analysis eg the lead says "Whether sentiment hostile to the United States reflects reasoned evaluation of specific policies and administrations, rather than a prejudiced belief system, is often invoked to cloud the issue". The article wishes us to believe that "reasoned evaluation" is "clouding the issue". PalestineRemembered 08:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

English acknowledgement

Please do not change the usage of English within this article, ie. changing Americanisation to Americanization. Wikipedia is an international website, not just American. Please respect that some words are spelt differently depending on cultural background, and supress the need to edit other peoples additions to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cjensen10292 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

How ironic you come to lecture on the anti-Americanism page. You're a complete joke. People will make changes how they see fit.

The above comment was posted by 68.229.201.181, who either doesn't know how to sign his comments or likes to leave anonymous ripostes. It's fitting that Cjensen10292 highlighted the changing of spellings in the anti-Americanism article, as it shows the way in which this article is currently being edited. You're not writing for the US edition of Time Magazine; Wikipedia is an international site, and Americanisms don't take precedence over British, Canadian, Australian and other Commonwealth spellings. Kronix1986 18:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the usual policy is to use American spellings on articles related to America, however. Cadr 20:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've written below, the article on "anti-communism" shouldn't be written by a citizen of the USSR, and the article on "anti-Americanism" shouldn't be written by a citizen of the USA. Nor should anyone take it on themselves to make stylistic changes to articles written by others, unless they're prepared to defend their action by reference to policy. PalestineRemembered 21:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's your reference: "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country." (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English). I have just changed it back. Citizens of the USA are, of course, free to edit this article. You won't find a reference in policy saying otherwise. Marskell 09:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Criticisms extend as far as sports, with America on the one hand being held to be inferior for not participating in the world sport, Soccer, then also being vilified when it does:

When the United States was chosen as host of the World Cup for the summer of 1994, many of the European news and entertainment media were appalled. Instead of rejoicing that the last important terra incognita for soccer was about to be conquered by the "beautiful game," Europeans loudly voiced the usual objections to American crassness, vulgarity, commercialism, and ignorance. They argued that giving the tournament to the Americans was tantamount to degrading the game and its tradition.

The statement at the top seems to be very NPOV. The 'example' given actually contradicts it - the Europeans were angry that it was being held in the US, not villifying the US for 'participating'. Could we rework this perhaps?

This article reads like it was written by a, well, American.

This article reads like it was written by a, well, American. Every point of discussion follows the following formats:

"[Europeans/Middle-Easterners/Others] say A, but they are wrong, since we all know that it's actually B."

or

"[Europeans/Middle-Easterners/Others] are [pejorative], and here's an extract from an opinion piece written which reinforces the fact that [Europeans/Middle-Easterners/Others] are [pejorative] and mistaken."

Large sections of the article lack sources. The Snobbery section is a good example; there's no source, nor do they specify in which countries or regions this snobbery takes place in. The whole world is lumped into one category, when there are obviously tremendous differences between anti-Americanism in practice in different regions of the world. This article doesn't clearly distinguish between historical anti-Americanism and contemporary anti-Americanism. There is no racial element or anti-Semitic element in contemporary European anti-Americanism; Europe has a large immigrant and Jewish population of its own. It also doesn't adequately explore the left-right divide regarding support for America outside the US.

How this got nominated as a good article, I have no idea. It reads like it was written by an American, for an American audience, in order to reinforce American assumptions of the nature of anti-Americanism.

How this article can be improved: 1) Heavy reorganisation. Ensure what's said about past and current anti-Americanism lie in distinct sections. 2) Removal of contentious unverified statements. 3) Trying to achieve a degree of balance with regards to the opinion pieces being quoted. 4) Ensuring that the article is written in a neutral tone and does not overtly favour the American view, as it currently does. 5) Bulk up the section on anti-Americanism in the Americas. Canadian anti-Americanism needs to be mentioned, and what's said about Latin America needs to be expanded.

It would be better if somebody who's been involved in the editing of the article to do at least some of the above, but I'll do it if nobody else is forthcoming. Kronix1986 03:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The above reads like it was written by, well, an anti-American. Where are the "pejoratives" you mention? Which are the "contentious unverified statements"? Truly, it seems that you're viewing this through a lens, and I honestly hope you don't attempt a "heavy reorganization". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.155.178 (talk) 06:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

He makes some good points I think. The snobbery section, for example, is completely unsourced. Cadr 07:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If people struggle to understand the US-centricity of this article, then they should enter "anti-British" into the WP search engine. They would find that that phrase appears some 481 times in the whole of EN:WP. Write an article based on those entries (or anything else you can find), and the tone of the resultant article would be totally and diametrically opposed to the one here. And there are other serious problems in this article eg the quote [3] from Margaret Drabble is unsourced but comes from the Daily Telegraph [4] The line quoted comes from the middle of the article, and it's been stripped from its context in a way that seriously misrepresents what Margaret was talking about. Here is the date and beginning of the article: "08/05/2003 - I knew that the wave of anti-Americanism that would swell up after the Iraq war would make me feel ill. ....... I now loathe the United States and what it has done to Iraq and the rest of the helpless world.". So her feelings are temporary based on specific, short-term things she describes eg "We have almost ceased to notice when suicide bombers are described as "cowards". The abuse of language is part of warfare. ....... [b]ut there was something about those playfully grinning warplane faces that went beyond deception and distortion into the land of madness." If distortions this obvious were placed in Margaret's Wikipedia biography, I'd be concerned for BLP, Biographies of Living People. PalestineRemembered 13:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I havn't looked at this article since editing it a long time ago, and I agree that it reads more like an editorial than a (good) wiki article. This is unfortunate as it was pretty good in the past. If anyone is going to reorganize it, I would strongly recommend looking into the article's history to avoid accidently deleting any of the better sections. For the most part people have just inserted several biased statments in-between previously encyclopedic sections of text. Edders 22:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree the writing was somewhat better back in Sept 2006 when you last edited it [5]. But it was plainly US-centric then. Compare the article Anti-Americanism with the article Islamophobia. Imagine the latter written by "militant" Muslims (though of course it is not). Imagine the Islamophobia article including the picture of the hooded prisoner of Abu Ghraib. That's pretty much equivalent to what we have now with the picture of the flag-burning. Article Anti-Americanism - "Enemies of America express their fury, intent on humiliating Americans". Article Islamophobia - "Enemies of Islam express their fury, intent on humiliating Muslims". The picture of the hooded prisoner wouldn't help (or be acceptable), and neither is the flag-burning photo.

Let me give you another analogy - think of an article on anti-Communism written by a Soviet idealogue - would that be acceptable in the encyclopaedia? We'd laugh it out of court. Why? Because an article on anti-Communism should leave readers thinking "Yes, I have a problem with that too, I'll question the next communist I meet". The article on Anti-Americanism should leave readers thinking "Yes, I have a problem with that too". Otherwise, what's the point of writing these articles and putting them into the project?

I already suggested consideration of an article on anti-Britishism based on actual sources in WP or Google.

Here's the WP article on Islamophobia again "British writer and academic Kenan Malik has criticized the concept, calling it a "myth." Malik argues that it confuses discrimination against Muslims with criticism of Islam, and is used to silence critics of the religion, including Muslims who want to reform it.". That's roughly the "conclusion" and tone that much of this article should put across. Reasonably (and even unreasonably) critical of the subject of the "anti" feelings.

My problem is that I'm not sufficiently interested or knowledgeable on this topic to do it justice. But if I were going to make incremental improvements, inserting references to Abu Ghraib and My Lai would be high on my list. Black Hawk Down and Kyoto would probably feature. My biggest problem would be that I'd have no Reliable Source to reference. Almost nobody (other than Margaret Grabble) say "I am anti-American because ...", because they're not. There *is* reflex Islamophobia in the world, there *is* reflex anti-Communism in the world, and the people holding those beliefs are not shy to talk about them. There's almost nothing like that for Anti-Americanism. It's a non-concept. The reason this article is written by Americans, and reads as if it was, is that nobody else could have written it! PalestineRemembered 20:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered's references to "conclusions" that should be drawn from Wikipedia articles violates WP:NPOV. If every article about a controversial philosophy supported the conclusion that the philosophy is an accurate way to describe the world, then we would have to treat articles such as Islamophobia in the same way. To paraphrase PalestineRemembered's proposed view that this article should support, the Islamophobia article should reflect the following view: "Yes, I have a problem with that too. I'll question the next Muslim I meet." Certainly PalestineRemembered is not advocating that we rewrite the Islamophobia with that slant, and if he were, it would have to be rejected as per WP:NPOV. Therefore, I see no reason not to reject PalestineRemembered's proposed slant on the anti-Americanism article. --GHcool 02:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

We need some consistency. I don't expect such a gulf in quality, reliability and neutrality between two articles on discrimination, especially ones as controversial as anti-Americanism and Islamophobia. This article relies on editorials to put most of its points across. Is this acceptable? As said before, it reads like an article written for a US magazine, the aim of which is to reaffirm the American belief that criticism of America is rooted in irrational hatred. This kind of tone, and the ending of every point with the conclusion that the pro-American view is the right one, makes this a bad article. People seem to have inserted irrelevant sentences and paragraphs over time which can only be seen as propaganda. Cadr removed two gems on the 5th of May, for example. This article needs to be overhauled. It's written with noticeable bias, relies largely on editorials, and is poorly structured. Kronix1986 05:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

People should keep in mind, this article is a part of the "discrimination" series. The subject is the villification of the U.S. and its citizens, and that's the context in which the term "anti-Americanism" is generally used. People might argue that the villification is justified, but villifiers always feel justified. They pick and choose the incidents that support their position and ignore everything else. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how this article evolves. I see it as a sort of Wikipedia litmus test. I noticed that just today someone in Canada didn't appreciate the fact that the article mentions anti-Americanism in Canada -- so he just deleted the entire section. (Tim Sheehan, 11th May 2007).

Some day people believing themselves to be the victims of Islamophobia will start editing here, and will almost certainly attempt to write the Islamophobia article in a similar fashion as Anti-Americanism. It will read badly to other readers, will not be acceptable under WP:NPOV and will be widely judged as un-encyclopaedic. While it is right to have the input of victims, the article needs to be written by observers if it is to uphold acceptable standards. PalestineRemembered 06:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Quotefarm

I added this template to the "Regional Attitudes" section because it is almost completely quotes. Some of the quotes are disguised as text, but they are still just quotes.--Sefringle 19:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is going on with all these quotes inserted into the body? Marskell 09:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What a fucking mess. Do people mind if I revert to a month old version? Marskell 09:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The quotes are in because you in particular kept taking out relevant content, claiming it as "unsourced", among other claims. If you find a way to include the content, without all the quoting, by all means. But do not simply remove relevant content. Otherwise, it is apparent you are simply throwing up excuses for applying a selection bias to remove content that doesn't conform to your own POV. Porphy 01:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Porphy's version makes this much more encyclopedic. Picture an article on anti-Semitism that opens with more than a simple mention of how anti-Semitism might "reflect reasoned evaluation of specific policies...." Without Porphy's version, the article itself becomes even more anti-American than it still is. --Justice for All 06:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to start a collection of anti-american quotations by influential newspapers or people in the bottom of the article, to make the problem more tangible.

The article says:

Anti-Americanism, often Anti-American sentiment, is opposition or hostility toward the government, culture, or people of the United States.[1] In practice, a broad range of attitudes and actions critical of or opposed to the United States have been labeled anti-Americanism and the applicability of the term is often disputed. [2] Contemporary examples typically focus on international opposition to United States policy, though historically the term has been applied to a variety of concepts.

Interpretations of anti-Americanism have often been polarised. Anti-Americanism has been described as a belief[3] that configures the United States and the "American way of life" as threatening at their core.[4] However, it has also been suggested that Anti-Americanism cannot be isolated as a consistent phenomenon and that the term merely signifies a rough composite of stereotypes, prejudices and criticisms towards Americans or the United States.[5][6]

Whether sentiment hostile to the United States reflects reasoned evaluation of specific policies and administrations, rather than a prejudiced belief system, is a further complication. Globally, increases in perceived anti-American attitudes appear to correlate with particular policies,[7] such as the Vietnam and Iraq[8] wars. For this reason, critics often argue the label is a propaganda item that is used to dismiss any censure of the United States as irrational.[9]

In this introduction all cites are about american autors, just like if the anti-americanism where an north-american-wide phenomenon. In any article of Wikipedia, when a belief system its exposed, the article talk about what the belief system says, not about how his critics explain or try to criticize it. To say "the term merely signifies a rough composite of stereotypes, prejudices and criticisms" in the main section it's obviously a violation of NPOV; this should stay in a criticism section. It's so obvious this, to the point in the third paragraph the word "critics" it's used not to refer to critics of antiamericanism, but to talk about the critics of the critics of the antiamericanism.

Contemporary usage is often controversial. The term itself does not imply a critical attitude based on rational objections but rather a prejudiced system of thought and it is therefore rarely employed as a self-identifier (i.e. "I am anti-American...") as this implies bias. Instead, it is often used as a pejorative by those who object to another individual or group's stance toward the United States or its policies. Advocates of the significance of the term argue, for instance, that Anti-Americanism represents a coherent and dangerous ideological current, comparable to anti-Semitism.[12] Anti-Americanism has also been described as theory that seeks to frame the consequences of difficult US policy choices as evidence of a specifically American moral failure, as opposed to what may be unavoidable failures of a complicated foreign policy that comes with superpower status.[13]

This is simple false. When people say "I'm anti-american" doesn't want to say they have an irrational bias. They want to say they're opposed to what they see as offensive/intrussive policies, imperialist practices, intrussive cultural mods, etc. The only true in this paragraph may be what critics of antiamericanism think of it... Again, this should go in some criticism section, at the end of the article, like in any other article about similar topics.

In the section "History", there's some try to explain origins of anti-americanism as an eurocentric superiorism. That's simply false. The facts about the XVIII century may be true, but today's antiamericanism its a totally different topic, no related in any way. This supposed root it's also aplicable for nearby any other place in earth but Europe, almost always in a very more radical way. The anti-americanism isn't about europes ethnocentrics, and that seem obvious to me. By the way, I hope the lines about Sartre, existencialism and european communist parties was a joke, communist doesn't believes in souls, and Sartre was never a "status-quo" autor for the europeans communists parties.

Some critics argue that anti-Americanism ideology often correlates with other forms of perceived extremism, such as virulent nationalist movements, radical Islam, or communism.

This paragraph it's extreme. Communism it's an extremism? nationalism it's an extremism? radical islamism it's an extremism? Are not "pro-americanism" associated with "extremisms"? whi capitalism? with christianism? with imperialism? I'm removing this now, guess no much to discuss about it. The next cite it's also been removed. It simply have no place in this article... put it in some article about french americanism or other thing. About the "racialism" topic, I think it's absolutely out of place... Not removing for now.

I'll try to continue reviewing the article soon. I personally think, after sucesive mods, it's mostly a bunk of propaganda.IsmaelPR 20:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It says that communism, radical Islam, and virulent nationalism are percieved as extremism, not that that they neccessarily are extremism. There's a difference there. I also suggest moving the portions of this article that you object to you into subheading of "Criticism of Anti-Americanism", rather than deleting them altogether. Furthermore, there is the question as to how many people really do consider themselves to be "anti-American", and what the term means to them. What qualifies as being "anti-American" really seems to be fairly subjective, and I'm curious as to how many people would label themselves that way. Asarelah 03:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the lead paragraphs, Ismael. It does not state "The term merely signifies a rough composite of stereotypes, prejudices and criticisms" but rather "However, it has also been suggested that...the term merely signifies a rough composite of stereotypes, prejudices and criticisms." It's being offered not as a definition, but as a possibility that deliberately contrasts with the sentence above it. Go through the intro again. It follows a very definite A, not-A, structure in order to be NPOV. As for American authors, O'Connor is Australian. Naturally, American authors (along with some French) are publishing most often on this topic. Marskell 07:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's weasel words. Is percieved? by whom? has also been suggested that? again, by whom? The very simple thing it's this: the core of the article should talk about anti americanism, not about criticism or interpretation (of critics) about it, as in any other article about ideologics. About who consider themselves to be "anti-American", obviously few. Antiamericanism it's a name created by pro-us-policies. For example, in Latin America people just don't call "America" the US, for obvious reasons. The term "anti-yanki, instead, it's very used, and every one in this countries understand it's not a prejudice against every (nor most) single citizen of the US. IsmaelPR 00:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"By whom?" Follow the links. It's a well-cited intro. The article has to talk about criticism and interpretation because the subject is widely disputed. Marskell 09:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Marksell... Obviously I've followed the links. But, "perceived" extremism didn't have a link. Also, the problem is "Is percieved", "has also been suggested that" was stated passively in the text like a "neutral/world widely common" affirmation. Also, was stated in the main entrance of the article, where shouldn't be.IsmaelPR 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Far right connection?

"In Germany, anti-Americanism can be virulent, particularly among all the far-right and fascist political parties, Neo-Nazis, and the general population of German ultra-nationalists. [...]"

IMHO this should really be rewritten, being quite a confident and controversial piece of original research. Alternatively, references should be cited to support both the claim that Germany stands out with a high rate of "anti-Americanism", and that this sentiment is characteristically linked with far right groups.

In any case, it would be nice to differentiate more clearly between presenting viewpoints and the general consensus in the whole article. Some sections also seem to confuse criticism and hatred, e.g. mixing fascist propaganda and peaceful protestations in the illustration. The proposed list of motives is slightly controversial and incomplete. I suggest this topic might be too broad for a single article to treat fairly and accurately. 84.2.212.38 22:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The reverts

First, Porphy's version has quotes that are too long, repetitive, throw off the narrative flow, and look ugly. See WP:LEAD, particularly the four uses of the word brief.

And, c'mon now: "However, they fall into the fallacy of failing to distinguish between disagreement with American policies, however vehement that disagreement, and expressed contempt for American culture, society, people, and/or history." This is a joke; it's utterly POV. (It's also very poor prose.)

I have no dog in this show. I've been accused of editing to both "sides" of this issue, which I take as a compliment. I haven't "ruthlessly" edited to my POV—my main POV here is that the page not degenerate into garbage as it's done previously. Marskell 07:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"JusticeForAll"'s talk above. If there's prose you believe could be better written, then take the time to *edit* it rather than purge it. If you think the quotes are too long, edit them specifically to boil it down to their essence without takeing out the content. I could - accurately - say that there is a 'large' amount of POV content in the article, but I did not edit it out and censor it simply because it doesn't fit my perspective, the way IMO you are doing.

The example you site as "utterly POV" is less POV than what it responds to. It highly apropriate in an article *on* anti-Americanism to identify fallicies in criticisms of the term, rather than, as the article was written before, present the "some"'s POV as if it were unquestioned fact.

It's very obvious that relevant content is being excluded simply because people like yourself - not you exclusively - have the time on your hands to bully others out and impose your prefered version. Well, I don't intend to be bullied. If you're not willing to take the time to edit the page without completely undoing it, then you probably aren't the one to mess with it.

Briefer changes you edited out before, with various insubstantial claims: Thus the increased specificity and sourced quotes. Now you have this excuse: Or, rather, a litany of excuses thrown one after another, in an apparent attempt to see if one will stick.

I'm more than willing to accept reasonable edits, but that's not what you're doing now. Porphy 09:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My original change moved the quotes to the notes. They were not purged and remain in the current version. I intend to more properly weave things in, but the page is a complete mess because quotes have been inserted as unformatted blocks all over the place. Whatever narrative flow the article had, is gone. Having new content/sources is good, of course, but content presentation has deteriorated significantly.

"It highly apropriate in an article *on* anti-Americanism to identify fallicies in criticisms of the term." Absolutely wrong. Please familiarize yourself with our content policies. Marskell 12:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

First, Marskell, "the reverts" is not a useful heading. I would change it myself but that might violate some WP:XXXXX or other. But you have my permission to move my comments to a section with a more sensible heading, if you so desire.

Main point: The "point-counterpoint" structure makes no sense here. And the fact that the version you refer ends on a not dismissive of the relevance of anti-American makes your argument even weaker. Imagine an article about anti-Semitism that had the same point-counterpoint structure, and that ended thus:

"But still, critics often say that the term simply masks Jewish money-grubbing, and that, moreover, their noses are pretty damn big." --BrianMDelaney 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh c'mon, save the appeal to emotion please. Can you point me to the stereotypes equivalent to money-grubbing and big noses? The sentence reads: "For this reason, critics often argue the label is a propaganda item that is used to dismiss any censure of the United States as irrational." Critics have argued that point. If you have a source to the effect "conversely, Smith has argued that Anti-American prejudice remains consistent across policies and administrations", add it.

And can you tell me how, exactly, anything but a point-counterpoint is going to work? The last big intro flare-up (exactly a year ago, in fact) was with two Anti-American trolls who wanted the lead to consist of an anti-Bush tirade. Marskell 17:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we (you and I, and likely many others here) have very different conceptions about what anti-Americanism is. I, along with many researchers, view it as something akin to (though obviously not equivalent to) racism. From my perspective, anti-Americanism and criticisms of U.S. foreign policy are as different anti-Semitism and criticisms of Israeli foreign policy. There are thousands of articles in Wikipedia critical of U.S. foreign policy. This article need not be -- in any way -- another. (Note, though, if you wanted to create an article that gathered all the criticisms together, called "Criticisms of U.S. Foreign Policy" or whatever, I would not object.)

Now, none of this means that mention in this article can't be made of the ideological use to which some think the notion is put! (Just as mention of the ulterior motives of cries of "that's anti-Semitic!" should be mentioned in the article about anti-Semitism.) But not as the "conclusion" (for that's how ending the introduction with it functions, rhetorically)!! That's nothing other than (structurally) anti-American, and that's not how this article should open. --BrianMDelaney 17:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. Having probs with my Internet connection. Might not be able to continue this for a few hours.

I recently got rid of a couple of weasle words and the allegation that there is a continuation between European fascism and the vague concept of the "degenration thesis".--Chris Camp 12:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ending pointless discussion. This page uses American English. Full stop. Marskell 08:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Of all the stupid revert wars on this page, "Americanization" v. "Americanisation" has to be the stupidest. First, the source uses the "z". Second, the guideline is clear that when dealing with a topic specific to a given Anglo country we should use the spelling of that country. Third, there is no "correct English" per se—American English is as correct as any other. Marskell 18:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. Or would you say Pidgin-English is also correct? It is clear that only "English" English is correct - even the word itself says so. Nothing could be more clear. I completely understand that this is difficult for US-Americans. But there should not be any kind of US-bias.84.56.127.227 20:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

American English is actually closer to Shakespeare's English ("ain't," "color," "center," for ex.) than contemporary British English. If any Nazi-oid, benighted, racist imbecile like yourself wanted to refer to a dialect as "Pidgin," it should be contemporary British English. But, in point of fact, neither is Pidgin English, they are just different.

Out of curiosity, is there anyone out there who thinks that Wikipedia isn't, for most of its contributors to non-science articles, a forum for xenophobic U.S.-bashing? --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-05-13 21:28 21:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you so angry? I suggest you calm down and admit I am right and you are wrong. OK?84.56.127.227 21:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no Standard English per se. There are normative standards, of which British and American are the most widely accepted in newspapers, encyclopedias etc. (Interestingly, Indian English may be the most widely spoken.)

Anon, I'll assume you aren't dumb, which leads me to believe you're trolling. This is an article specific to the United States; American English is an accepted register in professional writing and our guidelines tell us we ought to use it here. Marskell 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"This is an article specific to the United States" - no it is specific to America not to the US. I am not sure you understand the point here. But at least you are not as rude as Cultural Freedom. 84.56.127.227 23:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You think I'm rude? Oh, mein kleiner Freund, you are so wrong! I am a Platonist. How are things in Bayern? And, please: quit trolling! --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-05-14 04:21 04:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Cultural Freedom, I am not going to help you. This is the "talk page" for the lemma "Anti-Americanism". BTW I am not a nazi, I am not benighted, I am not a racist and I am certainly not imbecile. But you are rude. You may answer once more but for me this is EOD. (I dont like Platonists who argue ad personam)84.56.78.83 07:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You seething dolt. You insulted my language, and, at that, from the standpoint of utter resentment and ignorance. If you are stupid and rude to people, they often will be rude back. Take responsibility for problems that YOU create. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-05-15 18:38 18:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"You insulted my language" LOL Consider going to www.conservapedia.com 84.56.72.82 12:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"LOL"? You think insulting people is funny? You seem like a typical Euromoron: "Truth is the non-American; anyone who disagrees is a Christian lunatic. Nothing in between." Alas, one longs for the real, though obviously dead Europe of Shakespeare and Nietzsche....

I propose the following: a debate between you and me, with a legally binding contract that stipulates the loser pays the winner a large sum (we can determine the amount later). The position you'd be defending: American English cannot be considered "correct English." Prove you're not a coward, say Yes! (Though my guess is that you're a coward, and you'll find some semi-witty way to weasel out of this.) --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-05-18 18:45 18:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only is he a coward, he's an ignorant coward. Because he obviously doesn't know beans about either British English or American English. Shake the dust off of your feet, CF. —^Jack_Lumber ^/tɔk/ 21:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for the lemma "Anti-Americanism". I understand you cannot distinguish between this and your personal feelings. Sorry, but I am not going help you; and certainly I am not willing to play any high-noon games. And yes, you may call me a coward - I do not care. End of discussion.84.56.66.20 08:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

opposition to U.S. government and "anti-Americanism"

I went ahead and removed "government" from the categories at the top, adducing that being opposed -- or even "hostile" -- to the government per se of the United States (as many Americans often are, from a popular tick to not trust Washington and in fact speak of it contemptuously) isn't ipso facto anti-American. I do agree that opposing, and definitely being hostile, to the "culture" and "people" is a different matter entirely. That is my position; I welcome your thoughts.

Good thinking. I actually think we can solve the problem of the dispute between Marskell and Porphy by simply noting that Wikipedia already has an article called "Opposition to United States foreign policy." The anti-Americanism article should be primarily about the prejudicial form of anti-Americanism. It can of course be noted that some people think such anti-American sentiments are justified, just as it should be noted that prejudice against Africans is thought, by some, to be justified because of Africans' putative lower cranial capacities. But lengthy discussions about alleged justifications for "anti-Africanism" wouldn't be in an article about racism against blacks, right? --BrianMDelaney 18:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Antiamericanism isn't comparable to antiafricanism... there isn't a racial background to antiamericanism today. This antiamericanism simply doesn't exist after XIX century! Just because there's a page about opposition to US foreign policy you can't equal antiamericanism with prejudice, simply because thats not real.IsmaelPR 20:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Anti-Americanism is indeed comparable to anti-Africanism. The racial overtones have diminished, but anti-Americanism is generally a prejudice like any other. --BrianMDelaney 17:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism is definitely different from opposition to United States foreign policy. It is a type of prejudice against the culture as well. Even if some anti-Americanism was caused by opposition to US foreign policy, it is not correct to equate all anti-Americanism with opposition to US foreign policy, because not all anti-Americanism is related to foreign policy. Furthermore, it would be correct to say that anti-Americanism could be similar in nature to anti-Africanism. However, you could not say that it this is definitely a race based prejudice, but more a a prejudice against the nation itself, and i suppose that regrettably includes the people in it, if people do not carefully word their disagreements. However, the reason anti-Americanism is so pronounced is because of the influence, economically, America has had on the rest of the world. Globalization has seen the spread of 'American' culture to other parts of the world, that in turn, have been perceived to be imperialistic and also not wanted or not in line with other cultural values. It has also seen to be contributing to changes in other cultures, that many largely oppose. However, it is much more than this. The anti-Americanism can also be anti-hegemonic or unilateral power, or it could be culture again. Point is, it would be very wrong to assume that opposition to US foreign policy is the same, and also, and even though Wikipedia is just contributing to the knowledge already out there, the actual term or notion is not progressive thought in anyway, and can be akin to other, more simpler, prejudices in general. --203.17.215.98 09:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that anti-Americanism isn't the same as racism, but I do think it's comparable in many ways, especially European anti-Americanism. But my main point was that it often is, like racism, anti-Semitism, etc., a prejudicial orientation towards the U.S. and Americans, i.e., it's not rational.

But, as you point out, there are many different "anti-Americanisms." Since we have an article on opposition to U.S. foreign policy (actually, we have thousands), it seems that this article shouldn't focus on the kind of anti-Americanism seen, for ex., the Middle East, which tends to be less irrational than that seen in Western Europe. Instead, the article should focus on ugly side of anti-Americanism. --BrianMDelaney 17:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"anti-Americanism" is really an unbearably stupid concept and the whole article should be deleted. Is anyone who criticises the people of Britain, their government, culture or anything else about the country being described as "anti-British"? No, they are not, because that would be cretinous. The claim now that this already nonsensical chimera of "anti-Americanism" is somehow comparable to racism is an insult to all people who have been victims of real racism. The term "anti-Americanism" was coined in an effort to de-legitimising any criticism of America, its government and its people without having to invest any intellectual capital in real arguments. The totalitarian streak in the idea is obvious: dissenters in the Soviet Union were denounced as "anti-Soviet" and people with the wrong opinion in Mao's China were called "enemies of the state". America is just one country in a long list of countries where an attempt is being made to sifle real debate. And the term "anti-Americanism" is a part of it.--Chris Camp 15:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me guess, you're yet another in the legions of benighted, lefty Brits who stalk these pages in hopes of restoring the glory of the "Empire on which the blood never dried." Your country has become small. Live with it. About anti-Americanism, allow me to enlighten you. The term "anti-Americanism" was created largely by scholars who saw a continuity between 1) the racist origins of the belief that all those in the New World - those who had been there for thousands of years, and those Europeans who would "breed" with them - and 2) the general belief in the contemporary inferiority of virtually all things American. It wasn't "coined in an effort to de-legitimizing any criticism of America." That's simply duncical tommyrot. Grow up. You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

This doesn't mean that the term, today, isn't carelessly, unfairly applied to people who criticize U.S. foreign policy. But that's not a reason for deleting this article, nor for merging it with "Opposition..." --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-06-11 09:04 09:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

@Chris Camp, if anti-Americanism weren't such a trendy phenomena in iself, I would agree with you and say let's just call it what it is, bigotry.

which "scholars" are you referring to? Maybe to Andrei Markovits, who managed to dig up a few examples of Europeans who were igonrant and pessimistic about America's potential when it was discovered by Europeans? I daresay that's a bit of a thin-layered base for the very broad and very broadly-used political weapon that is "anti-Americanism".

About your two main points: 1.) The racist belief that those who had been in North America for thousands of years were inferior was held not only in Europe, but mainly in North America, by Euro-Americans - a racist belief, by the way, which led the white Americans to the conclusion that it was the right thing to do to exterminate the Native Americans and encroach on their land. 2.) There maybe pockets of populations in some isolated countries here and there where people preponderantly believe that "all things American" are inferior. However, there is a.) no proof for or against it, which is why the claim is so utterly useless and b.) no connection between 1.) and 2.). In fact, it is impossible to make a connection here in good faith. The exact opposite is true: Americans exterminated the original population, enslaved and deported large populations from another continent and have been in a constant state of war, practically ever since the United States stole Texas and California from Mexico. The overwhelming majority of those wars were started by the United States during which some very egregious crimes were committed. American governments and jingoistic hacks routinely justify their crimes by stating that they are trying to spread "freedom" and "American values". Th populations that are currently being bombed, tortured and decimised are to believe that it's for their own good. In other words, American aggressors feel superior to the people who are, in their view, unfree and un-American. Fraudulent neologisms like "anti-Americanism" are made up to obscure the facts and to make pointing out these very obvious events and developments look like bigotry. Nobody speaks of "anti-British" sentiment when Britain is rightly condemned for the mess it made of Palestine with the Balfour declaration, its crimes in India or its extermination of the Aborigines in Australia. I've never heard anyone accuse anyone of being "anti-German" when they discussed the German population's complicity in the Nazi Holocaust.

This is why the article is utterly pointless (unless there is going to be an article which tries to equate the "anti-globalisation" movement with racists and calls it "anti-Coca-Colaism" - that would make me very happy indeed and it would justify the "anti-American article in some way) and "academics" like Markovits should be peer-reviewed more carefully.

Oh yes, and you can speculate that I am British, Australian, South African, whatever. Yes, I am based in the UK, but I feel no loyality to any country, because I'm not a nationalist, so let's just keep the personal stuff out of this debate, shall we?--Chris Camp 14:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In some ways I agree that the whole article should be deleted because I do not agree that the term is inherently rational and that it should be given such weight. However, after reading a lot of articles on it (and there are a lot of articles), it is an interesting development. It would not be correct to reduce anti-Americanism to an attempt to stifle critical debate. Of course it is used by politicians to stifle debate about American foreign policy, but it is also true that there are probably people out there that would generally be considered "anti-American" for many different reasons. It is, in my opinion, irrational to be anti this or that country and so I agree with Chris in that regard. But, there is definitely a difference between someone that is critical of US foreign policy, and someone that despises America (foreign policy, culture, people) in general. And, it is not an "insult" to argue that it is akin to racism. It does not follow that anti-Americanism is racism, but the logic behind both are the same. Thus, anti-americanism in this article should be focused, like Brian said, on the ugly side of anti-Americanism and also the idea that the term itself is used to discredit or stilfe debate. However, the globalization aspect or cultural aspect is rather complex. It is not just about foreign policy. It is about the influence of a hegemonic power on the world. It should be noted that in some regard, this term has developed so much because the country has so much influence. Any country in this position of power that is affecting the world as much as America does positively and negatively, will be criticised. That can also be said. But, criticism and Anti-Americanism are very different. It should generally be noted, I think, that to despise everything about a country or culture or nation is not considered rational. It is appropriate to criticize America for their foreign policy or their culture or their contribution to globalization, but to be "anti-America" seems to be problematic in that it is not rational or progressive in any way. If you hate everything about a country, than it would not be absurd to compare that same hatred to the logic behind racism. And racism has long since been discredited.--shannon (also posted above as user203.17)

Seeing this debate my question is, are we not forgetting that most of the perceived anti-Americanism is nothing more than opposition to United States foreign policy? And as such should the two articles not be merged?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 06:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really. There are people who do not necessarily make the distinction between a country and its government. Furthermore, there are certain actions of America that cannot be blamed solely on the government but rather on the way the world economy is structured. Lots of anti-Americanism in East Asia is based on the intrusion of American pop culture and its more liberal values having an effect on traditions and culture. That cannot be blamed on the government of the USA and is a genuine point of contention all over the world. This and globalization foster hatred American culture and values not the government. Gdo01 06:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there are other reasons, but looking at the global view I think it is mostly a response to policy, i.e. Middle-East, Europe, South-America, et cetera. Also, the fact people fail to seperate administration from citizen does not negate the fact that they might be only opposing the administration.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 07:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You are deeply incorrect. The hist of anti-Americanism makes it clear that it started out as something akin to racism, then became envy. Opposition to U.S. policy fuels a lot of negative feelings about the U.S., to be sure! But that's different, and should be placed in the hundreds of other Wikipedia articles about how the U.S. sucks, not here. --BrianMDelaney 17:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can provide an example of this "racism" directed at people for being "American?" Do not confuse a single idiot to be proof, because we know there are anti-French communities in the US. Should we start an anti_French article? Clearly the majority of anti-Americanism is inspired by policy and not by hatred against another "race."Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Clearly the majority of anti-Americanism is inspired by policy and not by hatred against another 'race,'" you write. Prove it. As for proof of my claims, you might begin by reading Uncouth Nation: Why Europe Dislikes America, by Andrei S. Markovits. --BrianMDelaney 17:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No. Our sources repeatedly list government and policies in defining the term. The above is just OR interpretation. Marskell 06:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I was never advocating the above to ever be added in the article, so I find labeling it OR as unnecessary and pointless. I was just giving a scenario in which hatred could go to directly to culture and people of the USA(which is part of the definition of anti-Americanism) while bypassing any blame on the USA government. Gdo01 06:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on your comment Gd, but the general idea that we are in a position to deduce that government shouldn't be mentioned in the definition. It would make things tidier perhaps, but it would contradict the sources. And, as you say, people do not necessarily make the distinction between a country and its government. Marskell 07:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to see that functionally, Wikipedia is to a large degree simply a blog for European anti-Americans to launch harangues. This is understandable, but still, can't we do better? Listen, if the article about anti-Americanism is merged into an article about opposition to U.S. policy, the effect will be to hide entirely the existence of non-rational anti-Americanism. That would be absurd. Anyone serious out there? Hello? --BrianMDelaney 17:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am European and I agree with you - yes, this is possible! 212.23.126.1 20:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I've lived in Europe for many years, and am aware there are plenty of brilliant, sane, balanced people there! Can't we get more of them to participate here? :) Or maybe Citizendium will be the place where sane contributors end up. --BrianMDelaney 17:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well... I invite you to initiate a project to create articles on anti-(put here every country for turns). THAT'S absurd. There's no anti-cambodianism article, nor anti-portuguism article, nor anti-bolivianism article on Wikipedia. Antiamericanism deserve an article because, precisely, not "another irrational anti-whatever country" based on chovinism. I'm not saying that's impossible or even it doesn't happen sometimes somewhere... But... Can't you see this is not the point who deserve the attention anti-americanism take? If we create an article about anti-sovietism... will be about xenophobic prejudices from any country or people about citizens of the ex URRS? I'm not european, and even if I were, I'm not anti-american in the fashion you try to put it. The word its confuse... But the "americanism" exist too... "pro americanism" exist too, and this words have a clear significance for a lot of people around the world... Can you just try to think that's not what's happen to any country, nor what's happen to any rich or powerfull country? IsmaelPR 06:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

IsmaelPR- I can't understand what you're saying. Sorry. In any event, anti-Americanism and opposition to U.S. foreign policy are separate phenomena and should have separate articles. --BrianMDelaney 17:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Brian is right: Europe sucks, America is the number one nation in the world. Everyone here in US knows this.84.56.79.40 17:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Listen, mein kleiner Freund: A German pretending to be an anti-European American inappropriately attributing anti-European sentiment to someone who's sincerely trying to improve WP is not going to help much. Stop, please? Any adults here who want improve this article? --BrianMDelaney 01:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And again, I agree with you, Brian. 84.56.127.254 09:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge tag

Hi. Forgive me if I have made a mistake, but I can see no discussion heading here for the proposed merge. Personally I strongly oppose the merge, as the two concepts are fundamentally distinct - one can oppose American foreign policy without being anti-american. What is the rationale for the proposed merge? Best regards to all 195.137.96.79 04:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the two topics are related in that any criticism of the United States, the people or domestic of foreign policies is immediately labeled with the combative-propagandistic term "anti-American". Hence the proposed merger.--Chris Camp 16:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

With respect, your argument holds no water. The topics may be "related" but they are not identical and therefore require separate articles. Besides, if critcism of US domestic politics and its people are involved, as your statement asserts, then why merge it only with criticism of foreign policy? Are you suggesting that all anti-americanism is a criticism of US foreign policy? Many of the sources of this article contradict that view. Anti-americanism is a notable phenomenon, and verifiably distinct from criticism of US foreign policy. What is the rationale for the merge? 195.137.96.79 21:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of US foreign policies is a subset of anti-Americanism. I feel that it should certainly be merged into this article, as it's a very specific part of Americanism to be against.  hmwith  talk 21:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In what sense is criticism of American foreign policy a "subset" of anti-Americanism? Are you claiming that there can be no criticism of American foreign policy that is not also anti-American? That is what the term "subset" suggests... 195.137.96.79 21:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, it seems another editor has removed the tag anyway. Actually I agree that some parts of the article could be merged - parts that deal exclusively with foreign policy issues perhaps? But it seems thet the Criticisms article deals with them anyway... I think we should limit the article content to actual anti-Americanism, rather than criticism of foreign policy as it has its own article anyway. Any thoughts? Best regards to all 195.137.96.79 04:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean that US foreign policy is democratically legitimised by the American people, therefore it is impossible to divorce criticism directed at the US from the fraudulent catch-all "anti-Americanism".--Chris Camp 22:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. You may be right about that. Personally I think it's clear that these two phemomena are both distinct and notable, however related and intwined they are. In any case it seems the merge tag has been removed. Best regards 195.137.96.79 01:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris Camp is a leftist troll who, like many (on the left and the right) uses Wikipedia as a political blog. The idea that criticism of the U.S. and all forms of anti-Americanism can't be separated is about as absurd as the idea that criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism can't be separated. The idea that we're even discussing this is evidence that Wikipedia is not that the place to get accurate information about politics and history. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-07-4 16:49 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. Nobody makes the claim that there is no difference between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel (except maybe on the Fox News Channel). But comparing the very real phenomenon of anti-Semitism with the contrived concept that is "anti-Americanism" is somewhat insensitive, because the Jews have really suffered in their history, while the term "anti-Americanism" was made up by people who do not want to discuss criticism directed at the United States and instead create the impression that it is somehow "similar" or "akin" to anti-Semitism. But nothing could be further from the truth.--Chris Camp 13:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Chris -> splitting articles always risks a "POV fork". Or it can hide important material in a sub-page. But I don't see these problems arising in this case.

And I can see benefits - there must be Saudis, for instance, who are very anti-American, but don't have a problem with US foreign policy, as well as many people (eg Iraqis?) who have severe problems with US foreign policy, but are basically positive to the US. If there is any benefit to this article (which must be dubious!), then splitting the topics could be useful. PalestineRemembered 11:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Create related category?

Would someone like to go ahead and create Category:Anti-Americanism to go with all of the other "anti-[country]" categories in the main Category:Anti-national sentiment category? Frankly, I'm quite surprised that this category hasn't been created yet. --172.144.223.76 11:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me, but you may find that including some articles in your proposed category could cause a lot of argument. 195.137.96.79 05:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

It would appear, to me at least, that American Nationalists are foaming-rabid because it looks to them like it's biased, while the Anti-American Zealots are pissed because... they think it's biased the other way. Therefore, I postulate the article has attained at least a veil of equality- neither side really likes it. 75.5.181.176 00:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think anti-americanism should be defined as a fairly broad hatred of Americans, America (the nation not The Americas region) or it's culture. Specifically opposition even vehement opposition to US foreign policy might or might not be caused by anti-americanism but it is not anti-americanism per se. Like opposition to the policies of Israel might or might not be caused by anti-semitism but it is not itself anti-semitism. This article seems to confuse oppostion to specific aspects of American governmental policies or specific aspect of american culture with anti-americanism which is something much broader and like any other anti---ism pretty much irrational by definition.

-- It seems to me that whether intended or not the language of certain parts of this article are not neutral. I refer specifically to such descriptions as "complicated foreign policy" and "difficult policy choices". On BOTH sides of the argument this is not the kind of description needed. It simply further complicates a controversial article. Such language makes the article appear unbalanced and misleading.Jezmeister 01:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Question and Comment

"For this reason, critics often argue the label is a propaganda item that is used to dismiss any censure of the United States as irrational." This is true for any form of discrimination. Is neutrality and the truth the same concept? Or are they complementary? Can you be neutral and truthful at the same time? User:PBaum

Section on perceived stupidity

I'm no expert at these large articles. However, I can find several examples where the other 191 countries see us as total dumbasses. [6] [7] [8] [9] Quite frankly, it makes me cry. --Jnelson09 18:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

American Apologists

This article, while it does lay out the various reasons for anti-Americanism, is written in a tone that suggests that anti-Americanism is unjustified in all cases, and very clearly takes the position of an American. The article should not include responses to anti-Americanism, or at least should only do so in a special section separate from the main body. Additionally, it makes a number assertions which are opinions, such as "Canada is a nation that often uses anti-Americanism as a way of fostering Canadian nationalism."

Please sign your posts using four tildes. Instructions on how to do so are on top of the talk page when you edit it. Thank you. Asarelah 17:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. When confronted with opposition to either their foreign policy or their fundamental nature as a country, Americans tend to defend themselves by implying their critics are stupid, insane, cowardly or a combination of those three, and that is the only reason why they are criticising America. This attitude seems very prevalent here.

I would suggest American editors refrain from touching this article. Your cultural bias means you almost certainly can't see the POV that is obvious to non-Americans. Damburger 11:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, what a fantastic idea. In a similar vein, I would suggest that people who clearly can't keep personal attacks off a discussion page refrain from touching pretty much any article on Wikipedia. :) Edders 14:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think that was a personal attack you are remarkably thin-skinned. What happened to assuming good faith? This also demonstrates perfectly what I am talking about. This topic tends to (understanably) make americans get defensive, and thats not a good way to be when editing. 86.146.29.21 16:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"Americans tend to defend themselves by implying their critics are stupid, insane, cowardly or a combination of those three..." Where on Earth did you get that idea? Sounds like a typical example of anti-Americanism, in fact. That doesn't mean it is that, of course. I don't know you, and your incorrect statement could be based on bad research, and not prejudice. But the research with which I'm familiar suggests that Americans are among the most self-critical people in the Western World. The "Go USA! Woo hoo!" American exists, to be sure (Just like the "Go Great Britain! Woo hoo!" Brit), but is not very common in the U.S. It's more common as a stereotype in European newspapers. In any event, the idea of Americans not "touching" this article is bad one.

One could just as easily say: "This article tends to make Europeans get offensive, and that's not a good way to be when editing."

Most articles about politics on Wikipedia tend to be political blogs (and most seem to be anti-American). Perhaps this article could be an exception to that rule? --BrianMDelaney 16:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea that all Americans are incapable of looking beyond their so-called "cultural bias" and thus should avoid editing this article is stupid, offensive, and bears the strong whiff of arrogance. The "assume good faith" guideline works both ways.

Oh, one more thing; Mr. "86.146.29.21", I am English, not American. So you're way off base. Edders 18:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the IP address, that comment was posted by me. The reason I get the impression Americans turn on their critics is not the anti-american european media, but the content of this article. Most descriptions of anti-american positions are written with the clear purpose of rebutting them, or as I said above making the critic look stupid, insane or cowardly.

I'm going to try and make some changes to demonstrate what I mean. I'm going to see if I can make the article stick to factual descriptions of anti-american rather than OR and uncited statements as to why these positions are wrong. Damburger 16:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Americans are the only ones who have experienced anti-Americanism. I guess blacks in South Africa should be banned from editing anything to do with apartheid, blacks in all western countries should be banned from editing articles about segegration, and anyone who has ever had bigotry used against them should just shut up, huh, angry Damburger? 68.229.201.181 02:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

in response to the people who think this article is useless...

you just to accept the fact that a large portion of the world hates America for their imperialistic actions. no use in being in denial.

That wasn't my point for calling it useless. Like I say, I've lived abroad with haters like you. I've had the bigotry right in my face. I don't deny it one bit. And I know you're raising another generation of bigots. That's my point, that it's written so that everything anti-American is justified, just like your comment. Keep spreading the hatred. You must think it makes this world a better place. 68.229.201.181 02:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Too much focus on Sayyid Qutb

The Middle East section is largely taken up with this mans extremist views. This could be read to imply that people in the M.E. are only anti-american because they are radical islamists. Perhaps we could have more citations of people who didn't found terrorist organisations? Damburger 16:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Since it's not being merged...

I can understand why people don't want this article merged with Opposition to US Foreign Policy. However, that being the case, this article should probably at least have a subsection that links to that article as the main article.

There have been some points made that this article reads with a lot of bias, and that's largely because of the reason-rebuttal format of the article. Admittedly, most of the reasons listed here are not "valid" reasons and have legitimate rebuttals. But there are many perfectly fair reasons to be opposed to the United States as an entity.

That said, most of what's here would fall under the irrational prejudice category of anti-Americanism as a philosophy. However, since as the article mentions anti-Americanism is often used as a blanket term to cover anyone opposed to the US, it's worth our while to at least give focus to the other articles that cover more reasonable opposition to the USA. I think this is the ideal compromise that will allow this article to retain it's use as part of the discrimination series and still provide weight to those with legitimate grievances. --192.75.68.254 18:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine they want it merged because certain POV editors who 'squat' on this article justify everything anti-American with US foreign policy. Whenever I try to add any bigotry towards Americans from nonAmericans that doesn't fall under their we don't hate you -- we hate your government, talking point that keeps them from being called bigots, it's removed. All the nonAmericans editing this article full well that the hatred isn't just about foreign policy. That's why this article is useless. 68.229.201.181 02:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The counter argument is that the most level-headed of it is about foreign policy. There are some parts of the article that discuss wholly unreasonable and even bigotted reasons to dislike the US, and they should represent the fact that those points are wholly unreasonable and bigotted. However, especially in the regional section, no section should conclude that an entire people's dislike of the US is wholly reasonable or unreasonable. 192.75.68.254 14:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly my point, that in this article, editors have made it sound like foreign policy is the main reason for anti-Americanism. The discussion is the true story, eh? 68.229.201.181 07:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

National Identiy

I have removed this sentence:

the use of anti-American ideologies may represent a way for nations to unify the country and bridge political divisions and/or to cover up evident flaws in their political or economic system

As it can be interpreted as saying that foreign countries opposed to America necessarily have flaws in their political or economic systems. A better alternative would be a specific example of a country that has done this (I don't doubt it has happened) - along with a source. Damburger 16:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead of deleting it, how about changing it to something like "cover up perceived flaws"? You've made enough hostile edits in this article as it is. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-08-11 14:43 14:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You left a sentence fragment in its place. The wording does not advocate the statement (see "may"), and the rest of the paragraph has the logic and citation. At the same time, the wording of this sentence as long with the rest of the article has slowly deteriorated because of quick, fly-by edits. Tfine80 18:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I just read through parts of the article closely. It is truly a mess. I'll try to get up the energy for some copyediting, but a lot is needed. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-08-11 18:34 18:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Freedom, you have undone several edits that I made to remove weasel words and suggestive language. Please refrain from doing this unless you have justified why in the talk page first. Damburger 21:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

So I need to justify all my changes, but, you (because you come from the Empire on which the Blood Never Dried, and that means you stand above your own standards?) do not? Sorry, pal, that doesn't fly. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-08-14 07:50 07:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Everyone please remember the necessity of reliable citations. :)Edders 22:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Honest edit summaries; being serious

Damburger, It may excite you, like it excites many other leftists anti-American Brits, to have discovered a large on-line encyclopedia that you can use as a political blog. But this isn't what Wikipedia is.

And one thing that I find extremely irritating is dishonest edit summaries. Your recent edit summary was "undid POV insertions by 'Cultural Freedom'. Please discuss radical modifications before making them." You know damn well that 1) I was merely reverting you, and 2) there's nothing radical about that whatsoever, unless you think your own changes were radical, which negates your point.

Pull it together. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-08-14 07:57 07:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting you again, because you obviously have a political axe to grind (You bought politics up by branding me 'left-wing'). With a name like 'Cultural Freedom' I should've expected this I suppose.

The fact is, I am neutralising a large number of weasel words found in this article, which you are intending to keep. I think its you who want to use wikipedia as your personal blog. Thats what made you think of that expression.

Also I see from your talk page I am not the first person to notice your unhelpful attitude with regard to this page.Damburger 09:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to discuss your changes. I have no political ax to grind, I have a neutrality ax to grind. People with leftist or rightest agendas don't belong here. And liars don't belong here either. I see from your talk page you a known troublemaker. Please stop. Discuss your changes before making them again. Thanks for your cooperation. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-08-14 10:36 10:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Then remove yourself from this article, as you have a clear rightist agenda and I am not the first person to point it out, am I? Damburger 10:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, discuss!! Thanks for your cooperation. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-08-14 12:51 12:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

YOU are refusing to disucss your very biased edits to this article, and I note you've now violated the 3RR Damburger 15:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I simply reverted your undiscussed edits so that we had an earlier, more stable (though I never said "correct") version.

You seem new here (for ex., you don't what what the Three Revert Rule is). Perhaps you should read up a bit more on how things are done here before proceeding. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-08-15 11:20 11:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You are pushing a POV through constantly reverting my edits without discussion. I am going to continue reinserting these nessecary modifications, regardless of what you've said. Damburger 12:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you please try to be serious? Look at the history of the article, and ask yourself whether your changes from last week really don't need to be discussed. Please? I'm willing to discuss each of them. Are you? --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-08-16 08:41 08:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed, yet again, the OR from the anti-globalisation section. Its horridly biased and I don't even know how it got there in the first place. Basically it suggests anybody objecting to American cultural hegemony is a regressive bigot. Damburger 16:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Flag

The image is of a burning American flag with 48 stars, as it was before Alaska's statehood in 1959. Can it be upgraded, so as not to inadvertently convey the POV that anti-Americanism is inherently an old concept? Digwuren 12:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I laughed when I read this, but you are absolutely right -- good eye! (It jumps out at me now, but I never noticed it before.) I just did a quick search, but didn't find any pictures of a burning 50-star flag that we can use, but there must be some out there. Anyone else? --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-08-15 11:23 11:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Starting to improve

The article has made some major improvements over the last few weeks, and I guess POV warring has started to put some balance into place. There are still a few points I think needed to be addressed, and I'll try to be fair about this whole thing.

History: this section is fine until Post-Cold War Policies. Earlier entries in this section tend to give no credence to legitimate reasons for anti-American sentiment, but the reasons they provide are not justified reasons, so the portrayal is fine. The points it poses are addressed fairly, even if they cast those who held those sentiments in an unfavourable light.

Post-cold war policies is, I suppose, where things get controversial. The section does link anti-Americanism at least in part to US foreign policy, which is good. However, it tends to colour those objections as unfair, biased or unreasonable. For instance, it does list US disregard for international law as a reason, but puts it on the same footing as people who believe the US is run by a jewish conspiracy.

I don't think it would be unfair to put a link to the article on Opposition to US Foreign Policy here. It would probably be the best way not to draw focus away from unfair anti-American bias without seeming to try to discredit those with more legitimate reasons to dislike the US.

Regional attitudes: this sections starts off reasonably well. The sections on Australia and Europe do underline several instances of unfair bias and irrational hatred against the US/Americans, while not sounding preachy. The Asia section doesn't really address all of Asia (for instance, it doesn't even mention China) but those it does address it handles fairly, especially since nigh americanophilia in Japanese pop-culture has only really been seriously weakened by the actions of US soldiers stationed there. Perhaps a reference to the xenophobia of some of the older elements in the country might not be unfair.

The middle east section, however, is a joke. It portrays the only reasons middle easterners dislike Americans as their having been driven into a frenzy by their leaders. It portrays americans as wholly altruistic saviours, who could only be disliked for irrational reasons. Conversely, it fails to demonstrate some of the negative effects US intervention and violence has had in the region. After having the shit bombed out of them by someone, most people would be inclined to dislike them. It doesn't even touch on subjects like Abu-Ghraib that caused significant uproar in the region, and sparked much anti-American sentiment. This section needs significant revision.

My only other concern would be the use of Hugo Chavez in the Latin America section, as it disregards the positive and generally friendly stance he has taken towards american people in favour of solely focusing on his demonization of Bush and anti-US imperialism foreign policy. I think these steps he's taken, such as the aid he gave after Katrina and his cheap provision of fuel for low income American families vindicated him of anti-Americanism, placing him much more correctly in the category of those opposing US foreign policy. 192.75.68.254 15:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My workload might swamp me in the coming week (and perhaps much longer); but one quick comment. You write: "Post-cold war policies is, I suppose, where things get controversial. [....] I don't think it would be unfair to put a link to the article on Opposition to US Foreign Policy here. It would probably be the best way not to draw focus away from unfair anti-American bias without seeming to try to discredit those with more legitimate reasons to dislike the US." I think that's a Solomonic suggestion, and I'd support it. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-08-17 16:03 16:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please. Hezbollah runs charities all over Lebanon, not to help the people while they're using their homes to stock-pile Hezbollah weaponry to use to kill Jews and making those same people targets that they gave 'charity' to, but to try to brainwash support for themselves. Even many of the Americans who were supposed to be the recipents of that 'charity' from Chavez turned it down. Call us what you will, but don't call us gullible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.229.201.181 (talk) 07:56:18, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Chavez's socialist ideology and Hezbollah's religious ideology are not reallly analagous to one another. In fact one would expect someone following a socialist ideology to do pretty much exactly what Chavez is doing. Is he doing so in order to sway people in favour of him? Him specifically, I think not. Socialist ideals, certainly. You can call it brainwashing if you like, but that's sensationalist rhetoric that really has no place in an intelligent dialogue. The fact of the matter is that even if Chavez is being charitable in order to sway Americans toward socialist ideals, that in no way changes the fact that he's never shown himself to be opposed to American people, and only ever to American government. 192.75.68.254 13:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Chavez loves me. I can die happy now. The fact that you think Chavez is not using it as propaganda is what doesn't belong in an intelligent debate. 68.229.201.181 16:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you read what I wrote I said, "Is he doing so in order to sway people in favour of him? ... Socialist ideals, certainly." But I still don't see how selling cheap fuel to the American poor makes him a rampant anti-American, even if it was done to sway the hearts of the American people. The American people themselves he tends to respect. Take for instance his controversial speech to the UN in 2006. In it, he said:

"If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San Francisco, and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States, what does this country want? Does it want peace? They'll say yes.

"But the government doesn't want peace. The government of the United States doesn't want peace. It wants to exploit its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war."

Now, you can take that as you like. But as far as a character who demonstrates hostility or hatred toward the people of the United States, it just isn't him. If you want to read motivations into his actions that make him anti-American, you can and you may not be unjustified. But presenting such inferences as fact really isn't the place of Wikipedia. 192.75.68.254 18:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

National Identity

I don't think that the quote from A.S. Markowitz belongs to that part of the article. His quote basicly says that European anti-Americanism is based on the need of a scapegoat and seems to have nothing to do with the national identy-amti-amricanism connection. I suggest that it will be removed, and if possible, replaced by another quote. --Sachaztan 12:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Exceptionalism

I don't think that this article has focused on the view that the USA's exceptionalist view of its self and the consequent unilateralism that follows is an issue that many use for being Anti-USA. Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky have noted this issue. il magnifico 10:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's true. Can you mention any specific works to look into citing? I know both Zinn and Chomsky are fairly prolific, so perhaps more detailed pointers would be helpful. The other issue would be where to put such a section. 2.3, perhaps?

Also, a non-American grievance against American exceptionalism, preferably from a western country, would be a good idea. The only reason a say a western country is that self-righteousness has been a pejorative assigned to all western countries in other parts of the world, so in order to narrow it to Americans we need to be a bit more specific.

In any case, as long as it's dealt with even-handedly, it should be a good addition. 192.75.68.254 12:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I can point to http://www.newstatesman.com/200201140006 by a British journalist and political commentator called Nick Cohen. The important extract is this I think:

"America eclipses its rivals economically and militarily to a far greater extent than Britain ever managed. It should be happy with the balance of power. But not a bit of it. The determination to destroy the Kyoto agreement, International Criminal Court and Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty says in effect: "We are not content with our dominance. We want more." American unilateralism is contemptuous of the rest of the world, and the rest of the world can't be blamed for responding in kind."il magnifico 20:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

An anti-American in his own words...it works. Travis Cleveland (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This article defames the counter-globalization movement

By stating that it is motivated by anti-Americanism, and just uses anti-Neoliberalism as a cover. It says "Anti-globalist sentiments stem from perceptions that the United States was the inspiration and architect for globalization and neoliberal free trade policy..." Jacob Haller 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite the section, don't just blank it. Blanking is vandalism. Damburger 20:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually equating vandalsim and blanking is plain wrong but it is always a good idea to bring any edits that might be controversial here, as you have done. I think there may well be a connection between anti-Americansim and anti-globalization, ie its a manifestation of anti-americanism, eg with the left in Latin America. But in this case its ref'd and looks fine to em so I am reverting (but lets remember this is a content dispute and not vandalism). Finally its not possible top libel a huge, disperse movement like the anti-globalisation movement as its neither a person nor a legal entity, SqueakBox 20:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

header 1	header 2	header 3
row 1, cell 1	row 1, cell 2	row 1, cell 3
row 2, cell 1	row 2, cell 2	row 2, cell 3

Anti-globalism section

See this article defames the counter-globalization movement immediately above. I believe that certain statements in the section are defamatory, and that other statements, while not defamatory, contain falsehoods and bias. I marked it as a totally-disputed section. Due to the absence of defamatory-section templates, I improvised.

Without addressing my concerns, already noted above, User:Damburger reverted my edit as "Vandalism," removing both the improvised templates and the totally-disputed-section template.

I initially restored my edits. I then rechecked Wikipedia:Libel (I consistently misremember that pagename, as mu first edit after checking the page shows). There are no tags for defamatory statements. This allows three options:

• To leave the defamatory statements with no indication that they are disputed or defamatory
• To improvise means to mark the defamatory statements - my initial solution
• To remove the defamatory statements - my current solution

I could not see how to excise the defamatory sections while leaving the merely misleading sections.

Again without addressing my concern, Damburger reverted my edits and restored the section without any dispute tags. Again, I removed the section. At this point, I believe we need outside comment. No other editors have responded to my concerns and we are both near the three-revert limit. Jacob Haller 21:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction: while I was writing the RfC, Damburger and Squeakbox have responded. However, I believe that both misrepresent the situation. Damburger states that "blanking is vandalism" but Damburger reverted my effort to mark the defamation as well as my effort to remove it. Squeakbox states that "Finally its not possible top libel a huge, disperse movement like the anti-globalisation movement as its neither a person nor a legal entity" but Wikipedia does not have separate policies for defamation of large groups and libel in the legal sense: Wikipedia:Libel covers both.

Only one statement, which in unreferenced, would make the section relevant to the article, and that statement is defamatory. Jacob Haller 21:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove it: I think that the section should be removed altogether, but not on the basis of defamation. Although the section is probably intended as a jab at the anti-globalization movement, I think that Squeakbox is probably correct on the technical issue of defamation. The problem with the section is that it is original research. What little in the way of citations are provided refer to "Anglo-American" policies, which are generally more "Anglo" than "American," and are often opposed by traditional American nationalists. I see nothing here that is actually relevant to the article. --Marvin Diode 14:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. The latest polling on this shows that Americans are more concerned about the downsides of what is called globalization than any other nationality. Period. Additionally, the entire history of the American Revolution is an anti-corporate history. It was a revolt against the largest corporation in the history of the world. For further reading on this, see www.POCLAD.org . . . This section is basically worthless and relevant only from a propaganda standpoint. --Ben Manski 14 October 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 02:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep it: The exclusively English statements and references should be removed. Everything else is relevant, even if it's more about England, as long as the source mentions America. Otherwise, it violates WP:SYN. This is a page that catalogues a particular sentiment, and there's no getting around the fact that it's going to be unbalanced. Speaking for myself as a patriotic American, I'm not really offended. I don't think you're going to find a source that says people don't really have this point of view. This topic 1) should exist, because it is a distinct phenomenon and 2) is probably an exception to WP:NPOV. If you really want a neutral article, it should be renamed. You could say it's a WP:POVFORK to American Exceptionalism, but considering its length, I don't think they should be merged. My opinion is that the best policy to follow in this case is ignore all rules and ignore the natural bias that this article will have. Isaac Pankonin 09:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right to bring up WP:SYN, but WP:SYN is actually an argument against keeping the section. For the section to be legitimate, one would have to demonstrate first that there is something essentially American about globalization (which can't be done,) and secondly that the people who oppose globalization do so because they see it as an extension of America, and not just because it's a stupid and destructive policy. As far as there being an exception to NPOV here, you lost me on that one. --Marvin Diode 14:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

First we need to establish the topic of this article. To me, this article is about the phenomenon that people don't like America. There is no getting around the fact that an article called Anti-Americanism is going to be biased against America. If we really want it to be neutral, we should make an article called Opinions about America and merge this article with American Exceptionalism. As it is, it will not be neutral no matter what.

I think we all agree that this section needs to be improved, but I think throwing a fit over neutrality in an article with this kind of title is absurd. Isaac Pankonin 00:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Further Explanation The entire section depends on the unreferenced claim that "Anti-globalist sentiments stem from perceptions that the United States was the inspiration and architect for globalization and neoliberal free trade policy" i.e. that the counter-globalization movement as a whole opposes neoliberalism because it opposes America, and wouldn't oppose neoliberalism if neoliberalism weren't associated with "America." Jacob Haller 17:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the claim that the United States was the inspiration and architect for globalization and neoliberal free trade policy is not only historically illiterate, but may actually be anti-American. :) --Marvin Diode 21:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion belongs but that section we have now is certainly sub-par. The particular sentence cited should be altered. Marskell 14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This is my opinion in a nutshell. Isaac Pankonin 00:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Remove it - anti-globalism and anti-americanism are two different things altogether, and there are no referenced sources supporting the assertion that "Anti-globalist sentiments stem from perceptions that the United States was the inspiration and architect for globalization and neoliberal free trade policy" Dlabtot 04:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is about Anti-Americanism, not Anti-Globalism, and the perception that the U.S. "was the inspiration ..." and so on comes out of anti-Americanism, not necessarily anti-globalism, and although some anti-globalists may feel that way, others may not. So, at least for now, I would suggest changing the wording to "In this context anti-American sentiments stem from perceptions that the United States was the inspiration and architect for globalization and neoliberal free trade policy, which those opposed to it claim is exploitative and leads to conditions that either impoverish or do not enrich developing nations." Saraalan 03:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Rewrite entirely - It's complete bollocks to say that anti-globalists base their opposition on some sort of bias against the US. Anti-globalization critics who take issue with the US view American foreign policy and behaviour on the international stage as imperialist. This is a problem in other areas of the article as well, because it fixates so much on vague and weasely concepts like "sentiment" that it bypasses the political and economic criticisms of those most often labeled "anti-American." Perhaps some people just don't like Americans based on some kind of stereotype or dislike of American culture, but "anti-globalism" refers to something explicitly political and economic, and in this context, the opposition is to the foreign policies of the American government and by extension, large American corporations. Also, describing such a criticism doesn't equal POV; if it's done right, the merits or demerits of the critique should seem irrelevant. bobanny 04:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Intro reverts

I suppose it's time for the yearly revert war on the intro. The LEAD and 'Use of the term' have stood with little change for a more than a year and have been in roughly this form for about two; they have basically been the only consistently stable part of the article and they lay out, in general terms, the theory behind the phenomenon. The Hollander quote was added not long ago and is a relevant description. So I'm not getting User:Bsharvy's desire to gut the LEAD (it's an appropriate size), particularly with no comment to talk. Marskell 14:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The lead is misleading and biased. The ref. for the opening statement is a dictionary definition, which doesn't include "culture." The source doesn't support the claim. I checked a second dictionary, and it also doesn't include the term "culture." It did include "government" and the first ref. (and much of the article) refers to "policies," so government obviously does belong. The rest of the lead is slanted, and has weasel-words problems. References 2, 3, and 5 are all the same person (Paul Hollander), yet this is being used to give a broad, leading overview of the topic. Weasel words: "Anti-Americanism has been described as a...." This comment is sourced, of course, to Paul Holander. If the lead were written without weasel words, it would say something like "According to Paul Hollander.... According to Paul Hollander... According to Paul Hollander..." Would anybody seriously defend that as a NEUTRAL lead? I daresay anti-Americanism has also been described as a "glorious revolution" Why don't you put that in the lead? The article is constructed to suggest that any criticism or opposition to American hegemony or policies comes from hate, suspcion, or prejudice. What is this sentence supposed to mean: "Whether sentiment hostile to the United States reflects reasoned evaluation of specific policies and administrations, rather than a prejudiced belief system, is a further complication." A complication of what? The implication is that the default assumption is anti-American sentiment is prejudiced. Obviously (unless you're a right-wing nutjob) some anti-american sentiment is reasoned and some is not. There is no complication. Bsharvy 04:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It certainly overuses Hollander's article. I'd support modifying the lead to moderate his voice; he was publishing in a non-scholarly source, and furthermore one that, while excellent and readable, is politically exceedingly non-neutral. Hornplease 23:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1. The dictionary. I don't think we need it and didn't support it. WP:NOT a dictionary. We should come up with our own definition that follows the sources and the page; culture is clearly one aspect.
2. The article is constructed to suggest that any criticism or opposition to American hegemony or policies comes from hate, suspcion, or prejudice. Sure. That's why the words "it has also been suggested that Anti-Americanism cannot be isolated as a consistent phenomenon" and "critics sometimes argue the label is a propaganda item that is used to dismiss any censure of the United States as irrational" appear. Perhaps we're looking at different articles.
3. Weasel words. We can't say "Anti-Americanism is a belief" as bald statement of fact, so some form of caveat is necessary. If you have better wording, suggest it.
4. Hollander can be reduced and/or other sources added for balance. Let's do that without the silly rhetoric. Marskell 12:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Culture is not clearly an aspect. Hegemony is clearly an aspect. Most of the alleged anti-Americanism in the article is objection to hegemony not culture per se. Spare us the word games. Yeah, there are sentences that make a pretense of balance, and, yeah, you can quote them out of context here. That says nothing about the article as a whole. The article is biased, and you're not going to work toward a consensus on it by pooh-poohing other editors or calling their objections "silly rheotric." As for weasel words, you certainly can say anti-Americanism is a belief if you think it is useful. Are you suggesting that that's OR? In any case, the article needs to sharply distinguish between the definition and the interpretation, which the weasel words--and most of the lead--fail to do.Bsharvy 13:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon now. Are you seriously arguing that antipathy to American pop culture is not central to the topic? For France and the continent it's probably the central aspect. Try a search or two.[10][11]

As for the intro, I still don't see it. The Hollander material tends to emphasize the "this is a serious prejudice" angle but the last sentence of the second para and all of the third give a nod to the "this is an exageration/propaganda term that can't be isolated." (Someone from one of those two camps shows up here every six months and argues against including the other.)

I'm not speaking for the article as whole, incidentally. It very clearly has problems and a great deal of energy will be needed to fix them. Marskell 14:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's a nugget: "Thus, one could only admire France's Minister of Culture, Jack Lang, for keeping a straight face while calling Spielberg's Jurassic Park a 'threat to French identity.'"[12] He he. Marskell 14:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

All of those links are interpretations and analyses of anti-Americanism (as defined by their authors), not examples of it. However, at least some of those analyses agree with me: "Cultural anti-Americanism is stirred by the ability of American culture to influence and often displace local cultures." As I said, the objection is not to culture per se, but to hegemony. Bsharvy 22:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Markowitz Quote is BS

The US certainly has its own client states, particularly in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and southeast Asia, so it hardly makes sense to single out the USSR and PRC for doing the same thing on a smaller scale. Why is this even in the article? Jacob Haller 19:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a standard rejoinder to the left. The client-state thing should be included as well, and you wouldn't have to look too far for a source. bobanny 05:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Manifest Destiny

There is no mention of the offensive "Manifest Destiny" and other jingoistic americanisms which cause such amusement for the rest of the world. Also the boorish vulgarity of americans isn't detailed and the mainstream acceptance of slave labour (Mexican illegals, not that they wanted them) and xenophobic groups such as the NRA/KKK and others isn't addressed. Anti-Americanism is treated as being groundless as a basic premise which is clearly not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.238.150 (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Find and cite WP:reliable sources that express those ideas and add them to the article. Dlabtot 20:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the preceding comment is an excellent example of what some call "ugly anti-americanism." Thanks for the contribution. It sure is a good thing that Europe has open borders and that Europeans don't elect Neo-Nazis to office. We boorish and vulgar peasants over here wouldn't be able to look to Europe for inspiration otherwise. - Ben Manski

Obtuse

"Anti-Americanism, often Anti-American sentiment, is criticism..." this statement is plainly obtuse and to assert that a special exception should be made (special pleading) would clearly be biased. For example;

In falsificationist science, a proponent of a theory is still critical of it by way of trying to find tests that have the possibility to prove their own theory wrong. One for example can not be a proponent of evolution at the same time as being anti-evolution, yet the assumption that criticism makes one anti-anything says that it is the case.

This breaks the law of non-contradiction as do other examples.

Again, I was once critical of a pizza cooked at my favourite pizza Bar. I still love the pizza bar and it's my favourite. I'm not anti-my-favourite-pizza bar.

People all over the world critique books that the love every day! Books that they love aren't books that these critics are against.

And say for those who are trying to get a loved one to quit smoking, by necessity criticising them and their habit. Is the author of the mentioned anti-critical-thinking passage going to tell these people that they aren't just criticising an unhealthy practice but are also anti-their-loved-one? Obtuse.

Criticism per se isn't anti-anything. Trying to paint criticism of something automatically as anti-whatever is usually just an oft repeated straw man by interested parties trying to avoid scrutiny by demonizing people who dare disagree with them. Heck, it's done by kids when they accuse their parents of hating them when they get told off.

The only way out of this contradiction is for the thing being criticised to be anti-criticism. This is to say that in order for this article's assertion to be true, free speech and free thought (and therefore free criticism) could potentially be anti-American is to assume that America is intrinsically anti-free speech and anti free-thought and I don't think anyone could reasonably substantiate that claim. Ergo, the above reductios apply, and special pleading is taking place.

As long as there is a presupposition that criticising America equates with anti-Americanism, clearly a blatant act of special pleading, this Wikipedia article is asking for a suspension of reasoning not applied to other perspectives or situations. Giving special dispensation, where the same rules of logic, tests and potential reductios as applied anywhere else are thrown aside is preferencing one argument in a way that other arguments aren't. It's bias.

You just can't pass this off as NPOV. It's OP-ED material.

--121.45.52.233 13:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that intro was misquoting the dictionary reference. I have now corrected this. However, the rest of the lead is fine and NPOV.--Alabamaboy 14:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits by 68.121.150.10

I don't necessarily disagree with 68.121.150.10's edits, but they miss the point of how Wikipedia functions. Material in Wikipedia is supposed to come from published sources, and you have added a lot of stuff that is essentially your own views. Also, you added all of it to the intro, which is supposed to be a concise summary of what is in the body of the article. You made the intro bigger than the body. I would suggest you read up on some of the Wikipedia policy statements, and then try again. Please cite sources for your edits, however. --Marvin Diode 14:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion; however, i just undid your edits because simply repeating what's in the dictionary (Anti-Americanism, often Anti-American sentiment, is defined as being "opposed or hostile to the United States of America, its people, its principles, or its policies.") is pointless-- why have wikipedia at all if you're just going to repeat what the dictionary says? Also, that definition is ludicrous, as I expain in my entry. Are you saying that I'm anti-American for opposing "American policies" i.e. the policies of the Bush administration? That would mean that about 70% of Americans are "anti-American"-- an obvious absurdity. Since "policies" are implemented by elites, that definition identifies elite policy with the people, culture and society--the essence of totalitarianism. Also, whoses principles are you talking about? because diferent groups of Americans have different principles. You are obviously once again talking about elites. Are you saying that those who opposed the principles of racism and extermination of native Americans were "anti-American"? Are you saying that someone who wants to change the principles and policies of the US is "anti-American"? Also, can't you see, as i say, that "there is no monolithic, abstract entity "America" that acts, but rather, different groups of people with different ideas, different degrees of power and responsibility etc (who have different notions of what is good and bad)"? As for "anti-Americanism" being hostility toward all Americans regardless of what they do. what is wrong with the explanation that "This definition doesn't seem to be pervasive, since even people like Osama Bin Laden could call themselves "pro-American" if most Americans turned to his version of Islam"? I think I've refuted your definition, now try to refute mine. As compared to yours, my definition goes more in depth, and that is precisely what wikipedia is all about. --68.121.150.10

68.121.150.10, please do not delete referenced, consensus material and replace it with unreferenced text. As Marvin Diode said, you must cite your sources. The lead is a consensus version which the editors of this page have worked out over many years. The current lead addresses all the issues you raise. For example, you said "Are you saying that I'm anti-American for opposing "American policies" i.e. the policies of the Bush administration?" Well, the lead addresses that with a referenced sentence that says there are some who "argue the label is a propaganda item that is used to dismiss any censure of the United States as irrational." Anyway, if you want to make your changes, first seek consensus on this talk page for them. You will also need to provide references for the information you seek to add.--Alabamaboy 19:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not you LATER explain that some people argue this and that, the fact is that you don't give their ideas weight because you don't include them in the definition-- a definition which you got from a dictionary. I repeat: 1) what is the point of wikipedia if you just dogmatically repeat dictionary definitions? 2) I have convincingly proven BY LOGIC that that definition is irrational and full of holes. Marvin Diode himself said that he "do[es]n't necessarily disagree" with my definition, which OBVIOUSLY means that he DOES disagree with that dictionary definition that is so contrary to mine and that I have so thoroughly proven to be inaccurate. So Marvin Diode has ALREADY come to my side on this issue, even if he doesn't want to admit it. Therefore a consensus HAS been created. The ball is on your side to refute my definition. Since you haven't, or haven't raised any objections, you have, by default, admitted that the dictionary definition is wrong. I will change it back to my definition while heeding your advice to cite sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.140.142 (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The previous lead was not a consensus. I rewrote it twice, but was reverted both times on the grounds that it was "consensus." However, the lead that currently exists is even more biased. Bsharvy 07:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

68.123.140.142, blatently stating that you will continue to make these unreferenced POV changes, when other editors have disagreed on them, is not how Wikipedia works. I personally don't care what the lead says as long as the editors of this article agree on a consensus or near-consensus version and also provide reliable sources for the information. I have protected the article until this dispute is resolved. And please note I am not supporting the current version--I merely went with the version that had the most referenced material. Based on what Bsharvy says, there are also concerns with this version. Please work out on the talk page the issues with the lead and once people agree, I will unprotect.--Alabamaboy 13:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that isn't my version. I'm staying out of the discussion; people should discuss the lead and decide what they want it to say. Once an item is okayed by consensus, I'll add it it to the lead. When people agree on the overall lead, I'll unprotect the page.--Alabamaboy 23:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Alabamaboy-- how do you find out what the consensus is? Is there a voting booth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.140.142 (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is when the vast majority of the article's editors agree on something. See Wikipedia:Consensus for more. With edit disputes, the way it usually works is if someone disagrees over the wording, you try to find wording that both editors accept. In this case, agreement between a number of editors will have to be reached.--Alabamaboy 00:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The current versions has kept a few of my contributions-- though I still think the dictionary definition at the beggining is essentially worthless

Please note that the sections below this concern a couple of action steps regarding particular wording or items in the lead. Please state your opinion of those items. Also, feel free to raise any other items you want addressed. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No Africa

Why is Africa missing from the Regional attitudes section? Angry Aspie 22:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is American, there's alot of good reasons for there being anti-American sentiment in Africa that would be hard to ignore. You do the math. 24.86.58.173 21:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the Sub-Saharan countries have a highly favorable view of Americans, so it would be hard to do something like that, unless, you could include Egypt and north Africa, but they're more considered apart of the Middle East, so it would be pretty hard. (Cluker (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC))

Actual use

The word is more often used to slur opponents of specific US policies than to describe any hostility to the American people. Have any of you ever encountered the phrase in the latter sense? Jacob Haller 18:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Those who claim the latter tend to argue it's the same as the former. Bsharvy 13:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Americans are fat, stupid, greedy, lazy -- I've encountered all these opinions out in the real world (not just online). Obviously, people who hold such opinions about Americans aren't going to be open-minded about American policies. 71.131.23.199 (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, what happened

Aside from anon we now have this weird comment "Some argue that there is no monolithic, abstract entity "America" that acts, but rather, different groups of people with different ideas, different degrees of power and responsibility etc." and over-specific examples in the first para. Marskell 13:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If everyone wants that out, let me know and I can delete it ASAP. Once certain language is agreed upon by the editors here, I will make that change. I'll stay out of all discussions, but once all of you agree on something just let me know and I'll make the change. And if overall agreement is reached, I'll unprotect the page. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, there was settled language—for more than a year. Granted, people show up here every six months to argue about the lead but that's unavoidable.

I would take the sentence mentioned out and move the bit about Natives and slavery to a later position. That info is useful, but does not belong in the first paragraph (and 'slaughtered' raises POV concerns). Marskell 14:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Are people OK with this? Any objections? If not, I'll make the change. If anyone objects, please give an alternative wording.--Alabamaboy 23:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What's with these reversions?

I corrected "According to Noam Chomsky, the concept it totalitarian" to "... is totalitarian." Someone reverted this.

I changed "critics who feel it is used to dismiss any censure of the United States as irrational." to "critics who note that it is used to dismiss any censure of the United States or its policies as irrational." Someone reverted this. I think the original phrasing was dismissive. Jacob Haller 18:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be my fault. I was trying to get the article to the closest consensus version I could make out. Perhaps this should be the first change people decide on. Are people ok changing this sentence to what Jacob suggests? Unless there are objections, I will make the change.--Alabamaboy 22:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You might just unlock the page; after two days, the anon has probably dozed off. Marskell 19:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Alabamaboy 20:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the deletions of OR by Marskell have substantially helped the article. --Marvin Diode 21:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Considerations of internal American politics

With the polarization of politics in the United States present today, shouldn't there be a reference to how some factions in the US deem rival factions to be "Anti-American"? Toad of Steel 02:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

North America

Would someone explain what happened to the North America section? There is a section, but it's empty... I find it difficult to believe that there is no "anti-americanism" in north america... If there is no such thing, could we not delete it? mattbuck 13:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I recall that it was removed a couple weeks ago by an editor- I believe the reason was because it lacked any references.

If it lacked references could someone that can write these things please add some? Being canadian, I know for a fact that there's quite a bit of anti-Americanism up here, it's practically a sport amongst students to make jokes about the states. I know there's got to be some references on the web of Canadian AA, but honestly I'm not very good at writing articles. 24.86.58.173 21:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes theres definatly what could be called Anti-Americanism in Canada and I would imagine in Mexico as well (and possibly even in The USA itself). It should be noted that in Canada, Making fun of the states (for most of us) is more of a past time, less hatred than it is more of a joke... I would describe it more like how siblings fight and call eachother names. But there definatly needs to be a "North American" section because there's most likly just as much (if not more) anti-Americanism here than there is anywhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.151.116 (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the Westboro Baptist Church count as anti-american. Ditto the KKK. mattbuck 17:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with 99.236.151.116, in Canada I'd say anti-americanism is somewhere between a sport and actual distaste, depending on what we're talking about. Still, NA anti-americanism needs to be written about. 70.70.97.117 04:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've started it. Feel free to chip in. mattbuck 09:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hah, Canada is one of the most anti-American western nations on earth; "pass time" my ass. Hey, at least we're not completely irrelevant. The section on NA should be long very detailed. Travis Cleveland (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

"Anti-Americanism, often Anti-American sentiment, is defined as being "opposed or hostile to the United States of America, its people, its principles, or its policies"

Does fitting into any one those categories really make someone Anti-American? I know it's quoted, but shouldn't it say "and its policies."? Most people who object to certain American foreign policies do not consider themselves anti-american. They may dislike its government's policies, but have American friends and enjoy American culture. The anti-europeanism page labels it as discrimination in the 1st sentence, which I agree with. Isn't anti-americanism irrational blind hatred of all things American (no separation between its government and its people)? Surely being opposed to its policies is not "anti-american"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.26.29 (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism is a slur which supporters of foreign wars hurl at opponents of foreign wars (and coups, and other interventions). Has anyone found another use of the term? Jacob Haller 22:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I've known it to be used for insupportable criticisms of the States.
Example, if someone said "All americans are idiots", I would call that anti-americanism.
If someone said "So many americans say at the same time that they're the freest (sp) country in the world, but that George rigged the elections. These people need to either accept their democratic system is corrupt, or that they voted in an idiot for a president.", I would call that funny.
So yes, it can be used as a slur, but it occasionally has real uses. 24.86.58.173 21:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The irony....

I asked an anti-American why he hates America.

He went on about militaristic values, economy, and religion... and I responded so what? Saudi Arabia is wealthy and Islamic, Iran, Iraq, and Taliban is highly militaristic, what more do you want in this world? Then I asked him if he would blow himself up, he said yes so he could go to shahid heaven "shahid beheshti". I asked him, what if that's not god wanted you to do as a purpose of your life? Then he stopped being blind, and his repulsiveness slowed down, and started philosiphizing like a gentleman.

I'm anti-american in vague, but only towards george bush (the way he represents america).

--Storkian aka iSoroush ^Talk 23:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Americanophobio/Francophobia

How is Anti-Americanism not a form of Americanophobia, but Anti-French is a a form of Francophobia? Maybe the introduction of either was those articles needs to be rewritten (This text is also in the Anti-French sentiment in the United States). IronCrow (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've wondered that too. What's the deal? нмŵוτнτ 03:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The true Irony

We have anti-Americans contributing most of the edits to this article; it's kinda like a bunch of Nazis editing the article on anti-Semitism! I am marking this article, and I will be contributing alot to it, starting off by blasting down the POV. This article reads like anti-Americanism is okay, and natural – completely inappropriate. Travis Cleveland (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe that people being critical of ANY given sociopolitical entity is both not ok and unnatural? E.G. Is a person who feels anti-Icelandic sentiment expressing feelings that are not "ok" or not "natural"? 58.165.212.142 (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC) ChristianD

Copied from AfD

The following post preceded the AfD discussion.

This article consists primarily of 1) a dictionary definition which is so vague, it doesn't clearly identify a coherent phenomenon, 2) links to various musings and free-associations on the meaning of the term, 3) links to polemics using the term. The article itself, in the lead, suggests that the term has no meanigful applicability because it is so vague. Then it ignores that point, and goes on to produce a hodge-podge of interpretations. An encyclopedia article needs to be more than report on the inconsistent interpretations and usage of a term.

The problem in writing about this term is evident in the amount of weasel-wording it uses. Virtually the entire article is written in the passive voice, e.g. "It has been suggested that anti-Americanism is...." Followed by something like "It has been countered that anti-Americanism is...." Generally, no reason is given for why those particular suggestions are more important or accurate than any others, leaving a wide-open door for perceived-POV-pushing. This is no way to write an article, but it is unavoidable with this topic.

An encylopedia entry needs to be on a well-defined topic. This one isn't. The result is a rambling usage guide for a controversial term. That's not encyclopedic. Bsharvy (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

---

The term should be defined as irrational suspicion of, or unreasonable hostility towards, the United States, its culture and institutions. The phenomenon is exemplified by persons having an obvious tendency to credit, highlight, exaggerate and invent information disparaging the United States, while pooh-poohing, denying, or ignoring complimentary history. It is a tendency, an impulse, a predisposition, et cetera. Anti-Americans routinely seek information or opinions disparaging the United States, while intentionally avoiding or summarily dismissing complimentary information or opinions. While obviously inclined and eager to criticize the United States, Anti-Americans are reluctant to criticize other nations; except, of course, Israel. Anti-Americans habitually indulge every inference, reasonable or unreasonable, against the United States, and in favor of others. Thus, to a large number of people in this world, America's detention of terrorist suspects in Cuba is an unconscionably egregious violation of common standards of decency and accepted principles of law so contemptible and unacceptable that the act is deserving of unequivocal, global condemnation and opposition (and the trial of George W. Bush as a war criminal), while the imprisonment on the same island of persons whose only "crime" is vocal opposition to a dictatorial regime of aging communist brothers is hardly worth mentioning, and probably American propaganda. According to Anti-Americans: The September 11, 2001 attacks were the justifiable or regrettably inevitable result of American foreign policy, or were planned by the American government as part of a sinister plot for world domination; George W. Bush is either a drunken village idiot or the blue-blooded scion of an evil imperial dynasty, and the world's most dangerous and bloodthirsty terrorist mastermind (more so than Osama bin Laden, who, in any case, is likely in cahoots with the American President); not the Germans who invented the automobile, nor the British who started the Industrial Revolution, but American consumers and capitalists are directly responsible for an absolutely, positively anthropogenic warming of the Earth dooming all life to extinction if unchecked by the realistic and practicable provisions of the Kyoto Protocol drafted by enlightened Europeans but unheeded by stupid, fat, greedy Americans; American culture is a disgusting menace to the other, more tasteful and respectable cultures of the world, and is rightly resisted by, for example, bombing hamburger stands; et cetera, et cetera. These and other plainly ridiculous arguments against the United States are regularly and earnestly made by hundreds of millions of people the world over. They are implicitly or expressly endorsed, ridiculed, and parodied daily in print, radio, television, and film across the globe. Anti-Americanism is a phenomenon familiar to people everywhere. Like water to fish, Anti-Americans are incapable of conceiving of Anti-Americanism while they swim in it; but, it does exist, strange as it is, and it deserves an encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.16.188.45 (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Americans always looking outward

When the earthquake caused a tidal wave to wash over SE Asian, did the citizens of most countries run to their governments and their fellow countrymen for an appropriate first response to the tragedy? NO, they looked westward to see what "The Great Satan" would do for the victims of that tragic event. They critically asked where was the United States, when these victims needed a warning, but then just as quickly looked westward again for a solution, and it came in the form of two former US Presidents asking for support in rescuing and assisting the disaster victims. The two previous rulers of "The Great Satan" traveled around the world asking us, "Will you help." And the answer came....it came from the West, yes we will. Money, materiel, ships and people came to the East, in droves.

Why does the world look westward, to those they despise most, for answers and action? Why would "righteous" people look to Satan for help? They wouldn't, but unrighteous people would look to Jesus for help (read your Bible). Because they know deep in their own hearts that what they say about America is not what they know about America. Satan never said to feed your enemy. Who fed the multitude in the Bible, who healed the sick in the Bible, and who made war with the hypocrites in the Bible? Was is Satan? Anti-Americans judge themselves. Matthew 12:25-29; Matthew 25:32-46--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 20:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that though some people might proclaim that they are 'Anti-American' quite often the term is used as a false accusation by the right-wing media against people who disagree with one or other aspect of American domestic or foreign policy. For instance objecting to the Iraq War or capital punishment in America does not necessarily mean you are anti-American, though the right-wing media will often assert that this is the case. A cognate term used by a former super-power is 'Anti-Soviet'. A somewhat obsolete term with regard to the French is Anti-Gallicanism, which in the days of 'freedom fries' is perhaps due for a revival. There are several pubs in England called 'The Anti-Gallican' but I'm possibly the only one who knows what it means...Colin4C (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You must have just been born. Do you think this anti-Americanism started just recently during the Bush Admin. No, it's been going on for a long time. Besides, you didn't address what I said, you completely ignored it and decided to bring up some liberal talking points about the right.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 04:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The American government is selective in whom they aid. If there is a geo-strategic-commercial reason to pour money into a country to prevent the spread of communism, islamism etc they will do it. If not, not. East Africa gets most of its aid, not from the USA but from the People's Republic of China. As with the American gov this is not given for humanitarian reasons. Wake up and smell the coffee. Colin4C (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Methinks you are too steeped in your own POV. Is the U.S. totally altruistic at all times even to the detriment of its own interests? Of course not. Is the U.S. altruistic in times of crisis generally without thinking of its own crass interests? Yes — at least going by some past examples. Does the U.S. seek more strdently to aid its impoverished allies than it strives to aid impoverished avowed enemies? No doubt. Is any of that a suprise? No. I'm steeped in my own POV here, but not overwhelmed by it. I didn't have a lot of time to look for stats, but I did find here, USAID reported on September 30, 2005, that in FY2005, the United States had provided $134.3 million in emergency assistance to Niger and surrounding countries, which have been stricken by drought and locust infestation." — also, see figure 1 in that document which, unless I misread it, shows over US$3B in foreign aid to Africa in 2005, over US$2B of that being non-food aid according to Figure 2; Table 1 gives country-by-country figures. I don't know what Chinese aid amounted to.. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Americans really do think they're so generous, and it's interesting because the government really isn't. Here's an article citing a study that shows how 64% of Americans (!!) thought foreign aid was the largest component of federal expenditure: [13]. As a portion of our GDP, we are the stingiest nation in the industrialized world. Compare the $39 billion in foreign aid to the $489 billion in American military expenditure. Facts don't lie -- and with them you can start to get a picture of worldwide opinion on America. Njfuller (talk) 16:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No question -- Americans aren't generally very well informed about such things. Some people when asked a question which they lack the information to answer will make a wild guess rather than say, "I really don't know." A quick check here placed the USA 18th in percent of GDP committed to foreign aid, with a 3% commitment. This source places the 2005 US GDP at $12,416,510,000,000 — 3% of that would be about $372 million in U.S. governmental foreign aid contributions. I don't have any idea where to look for stats on this, but I have heard it reported that nongovernmental charitable giving from Americans in international crisis situations (e.g., the Asian Tsunami) generally outstrips U.S. Governmental aid. Perhaps someone with more research skills in this area than I can research this and add some stats about this to the article along with supporting cites. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick note: the 3% that your source mentions isn't foreign aid to toal GDP, but actually foreign aid to military expenditure (which itself is disturbing). Foreign aid is somewhere around 1.6% of the federal discretionary budget and less than 0.17% of the GDP. American private giving is nowhere near per capita giving by European countries and as a whole is somewhat smaller than federal foreign aid. The idea of generous America is really just media and political hype Njfuller (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. However, I don't see an item in the article which relates to this. I'm not clear how these observations relate to the topic of the article, but if there is a relation it might be useful to mention this — citing that supporting source you mention. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The First Step to Improvement

The article needs a lead that describes the phenomenon, anti-Americanism, in the editors' own words. Note a description of a phenomenon is not a usage guide: an encyclopedia is not a dictionary. The decription needs to be neutral and complete. If we cannot achieve consensus on a lead, the article is a lost cause. Anybody want to go first? Bsharvy (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What are the main sources of anti-Americanism? One could be those who disagree on principle with the whole of American political, cultural and/or economic ideologies. Another could be those who disagree on principle with specific American political and/or economic policies. Another could be those who benefit from anti-Americanism either politically or economically. To some extent these groups overlap. Within these groups are the "sheep" who are subject to buzzwords, bumperstickers and heresay; and members who are knowledgeable of the subject matter. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 19:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Having a different political philosophy than the US doesn't make one anti-American. Am I anti-you because I disagree with your ideologies or principles?
• Asking about the source of anti-Americanism is question-begging. What is anti-Americanism? Bsharvy (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I said it could be a source. I never said it was automatic. Read carefully. Can we back to the matter at hand? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 01:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Undoing the Warning Templates

Please stop undoing the concerns expressed in the warning templates because you don't agree with them. The template doesn't say "This subject is unencyclopedic." it says "An editor has expressed concern that this article or section may be unencyclopedic and should be deleted." That is probably the least arguable of the warnings: the article was just proposed for deletion, and the concern was expressed repeatedly that it was an unencyclopedic topic. The concern that it is unencyclopedic is also expressed in these Talk pages, directly above. Bsharvy (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Americanism you will see that there were six votes to Keep and three votes to Delete. The majority of editors here do not share your minority view. I think the tags are unsightly and unhelpful. All articles on the wikipedia can be improved, with or without tags. I think this is a good, well-referenced article. I propose that we delete the useless tags. What do other editors here think? Colin4C (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Would have been another keep had I seen it. The topic is encyclopaedic - in fact this is the sort of thing Wikipedia should be covering, and covering a lot better, as it's a real and extensively analysed phenomenon. Covering an article with tags only hinders and annoys readers. Orderinchaos 07:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Of course not. Warning tags aren't usually for expressing a majority view. If it is the majority view, it can probably be reflected directly in the article. Expressing a minority view is an important role of warnings. If 33% of the editors think the article has serious problems worthy of deletion, that's grounds for warning tags.
• It's interesting that this is being made an issue, rather than the most substantive job of producing a consensus lead written in the editors' own words that describes the phenomenon in a neutral way. If you really want to get rid of the warning tags, work toward consensus. Bsharvy (talk) 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the best and most thoughtful articles I have seen on the wikipedia. Its only fault seems to be that it isn't in line with your personal POV. There are lot worse articles than this without tags. If you are so concerned about the article why don't you improve it rather than spending your time maintaining the tags? Tags are redundant. All articles on the wikipedia could stand improvement, not just this one. Perfection is not within any editor's grasp. If something is broke, fix it. If not, leave it alone. The tags give a misleading impression about this article, which is I guess is the personal POV which you want to broadcast to the world as a second best to your idea (defeated by six votes to three) of having it deleted. Other editors here - should we delete the tags? What is your opinion? Colin4C (talk) 06:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You have now undone the warnings expressing other editors' concerns 3 times in the last 3 days. You are edit warring. Please stop. You don't have to agree with the warnings. They are not what the article says about its topic; they are the concerns of some editors about the article. If you want to discuss specific warnings, do so here. Just deleting some, without explanation of which or why, isn't constructive. Bsharvy (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The tags seemed to have been placed soley because someone was angry that an article they wanted deleted wasn't deleted. They are completely unhelpful. The "An editor has expressed concern that this article or section may be unencyclopedic and should be deleted" and "Its factual accuracy is disputed" parts were already covered over in the discussion to delete it, therefore it does not need to be there anymore. I do not see any "original research or unverifiable claims" as most every sentence is cited, sourced, and whatnot. The tags were put there in spite. Not only that, but the tags can be removed if someone believes they have fixed the issues, which I do believe are fixed. One last thing: The neutrality of the article is not in dispute. There are no NPOV issues within, it simply explains what the term is/what is used for/etc. The tags are misleading to a huge extent, making readers feel as though the article is trash. It is written very well and I commend the editors for it. The tag is ridiculous and unnecessary and is itself a POV move. I will remove it one last time, and it should stay as such, unless you guys want aribtration involed. I added: Please refrain from adding redundant tags. If there are any issues within the page that need to be fixed, please correct them or talk it over on this article's discussion page within the page to help prevent further dispute. Let me also add that citation tags were placed in all areas in which there was someone or some nation that has anti-american sentiment. It looks as if an editor believes that there is no such thing as the term "Anti-American."If there can be Anti-French, there can be Anti-American. IronCrow (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The tags were added for the reasons given. Your theories about my motives are disruptive. Would you like to hear my theories about your personality traits? Didn't think so. Practice what you preach. There is further discussion of this matter on the admin incidents board:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Anti-Americanism Bsharvy (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me that someone is peeved that anyone could in fact be anti-UtopiaAmerica and is looking for every way possible to delete the article so as to hide one's head in the sand.

Now the way I see it is that the concerns are being lost in all the diatribes (from both sides). So if you would be so kind as to do a simple list of exactly what you consider is original research, what you consider to be unencyclopaedic, what you think is factually innaccurate and what you think is non-neutral. Keep it specific to the article and lay it out in such a way as items can be 'ticked off' when they are resolved. At the moment all of your assertions are vague and hidden amongst a lot of rhetoric. Keep it simple and let's get this addressed once and for all so those, in my opinion, unnecessary tags can be deleted. --WebHamster 13:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a very good article. Only one editor (the same editor who wanted the article deleted) wants warning tags on it. This is very same editor who has just added this addition to the article which IMHO shows great lack of understanding about the subject:

"it is anti-American to be pro-life, since that constitutes opposition and hostility to the culture and policies of United States."

Colin4C (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did, that's why I reverted it. Just out of interest I wonder if Iraq considers America to be the epitome of pro-life? --WebHamster 20:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes editors add nutty things to wikipedia articles in order to discredit the wikipedia project. There are vested interests out there dedicated to rubbishing the wikipedia project. Colin4C (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Only one editor..." We must be looking at different articles. This Talk page and the AfD page are full of editors calling this article a biased, pro-America, jingoistic exercise in propaganda. The term is frequently used to attack people who criticize US policies and practicies, and this article advances that same political agenda.
• I didn't add the OR tag. Another editor did that, before I came to the article. I incorporated into the multiple issues template.
• It is very consistent with the definition this article provides to say that pro-life activism is anti-American. It is oppostion and/or hostility to culture and policy. If that is not anti-American, then improve the article by improving the definition. Don't just delete what other editors write. Bsharvy (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

So crap or get off the pot. List the particular bits that you personally have problems with so that they can be sorted and the tags removed. If you aren't prepared to be specific then be so kind as to remove the tags you are wasting everyone's time with. --WebHamster 00:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a guy who starts with "crap or get off the pot" is just dying to be open-minded about something like this. You've shown reasoning with you will be a great investment of time. The objections have already been made, repeatedly, in these Talk pages and in the AfD. You don't give a hoot and you know it. Bsharvy (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So in other words you aren't prepared to make an itemised list of specific problems within the article. You only seem to want to put vague arguments forward for whatever reason. You aren't doing your argument any good by being reticent to be specific. AGF aside by your actions it can only be presumed that you don't actually have any interest at all in improving this article, it seems that your only interest is being disruptive and 'pointy'. Seeing how you don't like the shit/pot analogy how about the "put up or shut up" version? --WebHamster 11:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I won't kiss your ass. Bsharvy (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Or make coherent edits to the article apparently. --WebHamster 12:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Boys! Stop! I think the warning templates are for editors to express their concerns with the article. Deleting them is like saying no editors have expressed those concerns. That just isn't true. I didn't vote to delete it because I didn't feel that involved and I didn't think just deleting a lot of work was right. But the article has a lot of problems and readers should know it is not a consensus work. I wish we could vote to separate it into different articles. A lot of the disagreement is because people think it is the same as anti-American prejudice, but some people think it is just attacking people who criticise anything about America. Why not an article called "Anti-American Prejudice" that separates that topic from all the other applcations of the word? Rachel63 (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction 'editor' not 'editors'. No one editor has the right to plaster a long list of spurious tags on an article in defiance of other editors' wishes and maintain them in perpetuity. The editorial concensus is that this a very good, well referenced article. One individual editor does not have a perpetual right of veto on the wishes of all the other editors. If an editor wants to improve this article they are at perfect liberty to do so in the body of the text. Tags are pointless and redundant. ALL wikipedia articles can be improved - we don't need tags to remind us. I repeat again that this is a very good article and the majority of editors here think so. Colin4C (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not the policy of Wikipedia that "tags are pointless and redundant...we don't need tags..." If you want to change Wikipedia policy, do it in the appropriate venue. Don't shove your agenda down other editors' throats. Also, please stop....lying. There isn't anything remotely like consensus here: no consensus about the article, and no consensus that the article is neutral, encyclopedic, or balanced. Doesn't it strike you as a tad moronic to be arguing with people over whether they are in consensus? A tad less than bright to be insisting there is consensus when a third of the editors thought the article should be deleted? As I said, I didn't add the OP tag. It is not one editor. An admin on the incident board said that the "unencyclopedic" tag should be added after a failed vote on deletion. Bsharvy (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What does strike me as "moronic" is someone arguing for days about keeping maintenance tags on an article but makes no real effort to actually improve the article. As a perusal of the article history so admirably demonstrates your only real activity has been to add tags and revert their removal. You've made no real effort at all to actually address your own concerns. That is more evidence that you have no real interest in improving this article and that all your rhetoric is purely for argument's sake. --WebHamster 11:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything you say about me is true. You understand me completely. Create an article about me, and fill it with your thoughts. Bsharvy (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you fulfil the WP:BIO criteria, or should we just put a maintenance tag on the top of it? --WebHamster 12:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Who cares?

This is ridiculous. Wikipedia has warning templates for a reason. You can't just declare them "pointless and redundant" and delete them whenever you want. Your comments don't make any sense. At the time you accused me of edit warring I made one edit to the whole article. There obviously isn't any consensus that this is a good article. You yourself pointed out that 3 out of 9 editors voted to delete--that's not even a consensus not to delete. A majority isn't a consensus. A third of the editors wanted to delete and you say there is consensus there are no problems! And how does it make sense to delete all the warnings because they are redundant? If there are redundant warnings you delete some--the redundant ones. I agree a warning about neutrality and about being unbalanced is a little redundant, so I am deleting one of those and putting back the rest. If you keep edit warring I will complain. Rachel63 (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous or not any editor who places a tag that, for example, says that the article is unencyclopaedic and then won't list, expand on or correct what it is they find unencyclopaedic then that tag shouldn't be there. How the hell can people correct the problem if the editor who places the tag won't tell them where/what his/her problem is/are. Tags are called maintenance tags for a reason, they point out problems that should be corrected, they are not methods of applying critique for a particular article. So for the umpteenth time will someone, anyone, give a list of exactly what needs addressing. For example which bit of the article do you think is original research? --WebHamster 13:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. So what? I've probably written about 1,000 words on why it is unencyclopedic, here and in the deletion discussion. Others wrote more. One-third of the editors voted for its deletion. Your suggestion that people "won't list, expand on or correct what it is they find unencyclopaedic" is a lie. The truth is that a great deal of effort has gone into explaining this view, and you've produced nothing but "you just don't like it." -- Bsharvy (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. You've written about what you believe is unencyclopaedic, that does not necessarily equate to what actually is unencyclopaedic. The problem is that this term is subjective. It could be that the tag is being removed because your idea of unencyclopaedic is not the same as the consensus. This is the reason I am asking for specifics. There's so much verbiage in those "1000 words" that it's very difficult to actually see what specific points you are referring to, and the specific points you do refer to are so nit-picking that it's nigh on impossible to comply (no doubt that's your point). You complain about so much that it's virtually impossible to make a start (if indeed one should be made). The problem is that you are totally sure that this article should be deleted, you can't get past that. As such you cannot see this objectively. So narrow it down into bitesize chunks. Reading back through your entries it's abundantly apparent that you don't believe there is such a thing as anti-Americanism other than it has a definition in a dictionary. Far be it from me to burst your bubble but it's real, it's world-wide and it's increasing both in quantity and in strength. It could be argued (and regularly is) that America is the most hated country on earth (no personal comment on that one way or the other) and as such it's a sentiment that is virtually tangible, far beyond a dictionary definition. You aren't doing your cause any good with non sequiturs like that pro-life business. Anyway, hiding your head in the sand will not make it go away. --WebHamster 01:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Woomp, there it is: "You've written about what you believe is unencyclopaedic, that does not necessarily equate to what actually is unencyclopaedic." You are blanking edits simply because you disagree with someone. --Bsharvy (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Duh, ya think? My understanding of 'encyclopaedic' is that it is something that is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Given that the recent afd result was to keep it, then that means it has been determined that it is indeed suitable for this encyclopaedia, ergo it is not unencyclopaedic regardless of what you think.--WebHamster 17:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your 'third' comprises a grand total of three editors, one of which was you. I.e. you and two other editors. Big deal. Colin4C (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Bsharvy, calm down. You still have not replied to my statement above. You replied to one sentence. Not only that, but if you can find and point out the issues you stated in the tags, then I am sure people will be more than happy to keep the tags up, but you haven't. "Practice what you preach." What do you mean by that? I am trying to find ways to improve this article as best I can. Like I have pretty much stated and heck, I bet there's a wikipedia guideline about it, "if you do not like the article, that does does merit adding redundant tags." It's as simple as that. People cannot correct the problems in the article if you just stick the tags up there and not list what is wrong with it here on the discussion page. That in itself is a bias. i ahve read the article a good number of times and I do not see much wrong with it, aside from some needed citations. Heck, this is written less biased as the anti-french sentiment page, I don't see you complaining about that. If you cannot find a better reason than "I think it's biased/I don't like it/etc.," then don't edit the page. Find what's wrong. Edit it. Fix it. Don't put the tags up and do nothing. IronCrow (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, they've fulfilled one of their goals: stopping constructive contributions to the page. Chalk it up as a win -- Bsharvy has succeeded in disrupting the page. Seriously though, get some outside arbitration; Bsharvy is in the wrong. Njfuller (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Why not an article called "Anti-American Prejudice" that separates that topic from all the other applcations of the word?" This article is over 60 k long. A new article is a good idea, and an article that eliminates--by definition--the confusion regarding prejudice would be a good solution. Right now, this article claims just about everybody who has ever had any conern about the US is anti-American, implying that all such criticism comes from prejudice.
• I've expressed specific complaints about this article many times. I specified what exactly is non-neutral about the lead many times. There's just a pretense here of being open-minded.
• Virtually the entire article pushes POV. The enitre section on "Early 20th Century" is unsourced and POV. The entire section on Europe is POV-pushing: A decline in "favorable opinions" of America is not anti-Americanism. It is sheer POV to assert that it comes from prejudice. Do you think all those Europeans will agree they are bigots? WebHamster's attempt to source "Over-paid, over-sexed and over here..." as anti-Americanism is a typical lie. The source actually says: "...the older folks of East Anglia recall, with a great fondness, the 1940's invasion of the 'yanks' who were, as they exclaimed then, "over-paid, over-sexed and over here!" Lying about what his own source says is the typical level integrity broght to this discussion by WebHamster. Even without the comment about fondness, the idea that such a quip is an example of anti-American bigotry is half-baked. But that's how 90% of this article is written. --Bsharvy (talk) 04:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hate to be clichéd here - but (re Europeans) why don't you ask them? They don't see it as bigotry at all (many characterise it as an opposition to perceived American bigotry), but many French people are quite proud to describe themselves as anti-American, so are some Canadians and some Australians. Here in Australia on the two occasions US senior leadership figures have visited, they've needed to shut down the entire of Sydney's central core and ban its residents from large areas due to the amount of hatred felt towards them. How much of it is opposition to US foreign policy and militarism and how much of it is opposition to America in and of itself is something that one would need to go to the academic studies to try and figure out. (Then of course there is places like Pakistan, Indonesia and so on where anti-Americanism is worn like a badge of honour and probably is against all those things as well.) From what I've read, anything pre-1940s is probably trying to read something new into something old. There are problems with the article content. However accusing other editors of lying is a personal attack and some of the stuff going on here has been way more heated than the topic requires. I suggest trying to improve it, rather than trying to tag it. Orderinchaos 07:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Saying the editors is lying just escalates the personal comments, but what are you supposed to do when the editors lie? Webhamster said I violated 3RR when I didn't. Collin4C keeps deleting the warnings with the comment "removed tags as per consensus on Talk page". That's ridiculous. There isn't a consensus. Does this look like consensus??? Can Webhamster explain why that page says the British fondly recalled the American troops, and he said it was proof of being anti-American? Rachel63 (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't lie, I produced the 3 diffs and I should point you to this section of WP:3RR - "The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period". As for the "fondly" bit in the cite, once again it's open to interpretation. They are referring to it being a fond recollection. The recollection may be fond but the original sentiment felt at the time wasn't. Why else would such a disparaging expression come about? It's not rocket science. But as you have taken to exception to those cites I shall find some more when I get a min, it was late at night when I put those in there and I was rushing. There are plenty more to be had. --WebHamster 12:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How many tags do you think the article should have and why? Please give detailed reasons. At the moment it has five tags. Do you support all of these or more or less? What are your reasons. E.g. if someone added an extra two tags and made it seven would you revert to that number without explaining your reasons why each and every one of them is justified in your view? Colin4C (talk) 10:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fondness... you are complaining about a word/some words that can be solved simply by editing it out. There's no need to add tags, just fix it. IronCrow (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)