Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26 →

Contents 1 Political article 2 Envy 3 This Article Is Really Bad 4 Undoing the Warning Templates (arbitrary break) 5 My "mass removals" 6 Factual Accuracy Tag 7 Original Research Tag 8 Unpublished synthesis tag 9 Neutrality Tag 10 Anti-Americanism the definition 11 Tags 12 Possible sockpuppets? 13 Anti-Americanism as a racist term 14 Revert to pre edit war version: 194848300 By Colin4C 29 Feb 14.1 break #1 15 Spelling 16 Due weight 17 RFC: Is Neutrality in Dispute? 18 March 2008 19 Page protected 20 The Revenge of Bsharvy 21 State terrorism and the United States 22 Squatt 23 Reasons for AntiAmericanism 24 External Links peer-reviewed 25 The Asia section needs something on China, possibly North Korea 26 As criticism 26.1 break 27 White Mans Burden 28 Revamp this article 29 Removals and rationale 30 Protection requested 31 What Is this Article About? 32 Time for WP:TEA 33 Suggestion 34 East Asia 35 Public opinion polls 36 Split 36.1 The problem 37 Possible addition

Political article

I recommend you include [[Category:Political ideologies]] and take this over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. Like any political consept be it Liberalism, Communism, or Fashism there will be a POV, but you need to strive to keep the bias out of the article to meet Wikipedia NPOV. Maybe editors at WikiProject Politics can help you setle your differences. Igor Berger (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Envy

This article attempts to validate and (in a blatantly POV way) rationalizes anti-Americanism. That alone is unacceptable, but it also leaves out one of the greatest perceived causes of Anti-Americanism: Envy. There is a prevalent belief that a lot of anti-Americanism stems from simple envy of America's wealth, comfort, and power. Whether or not this is an accurate belief is not for us to prove. It is a commonly held belief that warrants posting. But so far, this page has been little more than a place to post complaints about America masquerading as causes of anti-Americanism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.106.28 (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Envy... I don't think so. Of course, United States of America is a wealthy country, but as you just added after, and i think that's the point, power. I do believe it's one of the greatest perceived causes of Anti-Americanism. They're the most powerful nation the world have never seen and as all the others past powerful nations, they seem to act only for themselves, as Spain did it in the 16th century, France in the 17th century and Great-Britain in the 18th century. You can find lots of people who could have some Anti-Americanism attitudes, and they're living in a wealthy and comfy country too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.27.159.86 (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This Article Is Really Bad

It is essentialy a free-association on a dictionary definition, with various "sources" haphazzardly tossed in. The sources tend to be essays, and as such merely document claims about how people have interpreted the term. An encyclopedia article needs to be more than report on interpretations of a term. The article tends to present these interpretations in passive-voice weasel words, e.g. "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." Reference [3] for that claim is just an essay in which somebody says that. There is no partocilar reason to think this is a definining, prominent, or correct usage of the term, or an important theory. Another example: "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.[6]" Passive voice weasel-words, not indicating why the topic is actually meaningful. Most of the presentation is also slanted to present criticism of the US as bigotry. It also consistently misrepresents the subject of much so-called anti-American sentiment. Many of the examples are objections to American hegemony, not American culture per se. For example, people object to small family-run restaraunts in a small country going out of business because of the influx of Pizza Huts and Burger Kings. That is not fairly represented as "hostility to American culture"; it is an objection to American hegemony. There is a difference. Frankly, the article smacks of a right-wing political agenda. I question whether it would serve a useful purpose even if cleaned up. The term "anti-Americanism" is highly interpretive, corrupted by political ideology, and denotes no clearly defined set of phenomena. This article should be deleted. Bsharvy (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Then start an AfD, or fix the article. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Editors! Your opinions are valued on this proposal: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Americanism Colin4C (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This article have to be reworked, that's for sure!!! But Bsharvy, we're on Wikipedia and not in a Encyclopedia, Objection to American hegemony is for me, a full part of the Anti-Americanism feeling. You should have a look on European history from the 16th to the begining of the 20th century, everytime a country had hegemony, it was hated by the others and it always finished with some Anti-(which country you want and you got the choice Spain, Uk, France, Germany) and so that's why i think it's a common phenomena. The question of hegemony should be listed in a particular category of this article. By the way, I fully agree with you about the corrupted side by political, too much people make confusion between actions of a government and on the other hand, people of the country. So bad! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.27.159.86 (talk) 17:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Undoing the Warning Templates (arbitrary break)

To aid discussion here are the current five tags. Please discuss the issues:

This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page. Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since February 2008. It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since February 2008. Its factual accuracy is disputed. Tagged since February 2008. It may contain an unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not verifiable with the given sources. Tagged since March 2008. It may contain material not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

Colin4C (talk) 10:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• It occurs to me that there is something wrong in the way Wikipedia renders the POV tag. It is displayed as a concern for factual accuracy (which is also valid for this article).
• In any case, the problems have been discussed repeatedly, as you know. In particular, the concerns about neutrality and encyclopedic content were discussed in the nomination for deletion, and they have been repeated here. I also specified neutrality problems in the Talk section titled "Intro reverts"
• Some problems are systemic and can't be fixed by simple editing. In this case the problem is that nobody knows what our subject is. Is it necessarily a kind of prejudice? Nobody can agree, and in fact, the article notes that nobody agrees on that. Does our subject include opposition to policy? Nobody agrees. Opposition to the government? Nobody agrees. Can it be mere opposition or does it have be hostility or hatred? Nobody agrees. I made a section called "First Step to Improvement" in which I proposed the basic task we need to work on: A neutral, complete, consensus description of what it is we are talking about. A lead written in the editors' own words, not merely a paraphrase of the dictionary. But we can't do that.
• Being clear about what we mean by AA is doubly important because it tends to suggest prejudice. We need to be able to say so-and-so is anti-American. If we are going to call people prejudiced, it needs to be clear and well-sourced.--Bsharvy (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the accusations of POV are based on a confusion in the understanding of the term in relation to WP. WP editors need to steer clear of POV within the subject, but when the subject of the article itself is itself a POV then the rules change slightly. This is when factual accuracy comes to the fore. And yes I agree that there needs to be more accurate referencing. This is preferable to wholesale deletion. Unless the edited text is grossly POV or obviously theorising then attempts should be made to reference before deletion takes place.

I also believe that this new attempted direction of using "prejudice" is quite unnecessary and is bordering on a strawman argument. Anything with anti as a prefix in the title is quite obviously demonstrating a prejudice to whatever it is preceding.

Obviously this article is going to be non-neutral in general terms as it's going to be demonstrating a worldwide antithesis to America. It's a given that most Americans will find this to be non-neutral; how could anything be "anti" and remain neutral? What's required is, as you said, referencing so as to avoid editors being non-neutral rather than what they write as being non-neutral from the article's reference point.

With your comments about the lead, well this article is no different than any other. The lead should not be a definition of the term, it should be a summary of what the article contains. This can be in the editor's own words so long as what it is expounding is the contents of the article and not a free-for-all rant against America or an etymological dissertation on the term itself. That's what the Wiktionary is for.

With regard to your "what is it an opposition to?" That's easy, it should cover opposition and dissent against every single aspect of the US. Its government, its domestic and foreign policy, its financial policies, its social structure, its culture its people's mindsets. In a word, everything. Likewise "is it against, is it hostile, is it hatred"? It's all of them as they are all encompassed by the term "anti". This is why you are writing your 1000 words, you are nit-picking when you don't need to. You seem to be trying to obfuscate your straw man arguments in a wrapper of verbiage. You are asking questions that don't need to be asked, you are trying to isolate things that don't need to be isolated. It's not A or B or C, it's A and B and C. --WebHamster 13:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe these Anti-facism, Antisemitism, anti-Zionism, anti-globalization can help you work towards what is NPOV in a POV article. Igor Berger (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Bsharvy says "some problems can't be fixed by simple editing". So how can they be fixed? In plain English this means that he wants to maintain the tags in perpetuity, forever, as his POV way of discrediting the article to all users in the future. Do other editors agree with his view that the tags should remain as a permanent feature of this article? Colin4C (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are three tags.

disputed = February 2008

OR = February 2008

synthesis = March 2008

I recommend keeping synthesis = March 2008 and removing the other two. Unless a case can be made to justify the other two tags they are not needed. Igor Berger (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• The term doesn't inherently denote prejudice. Prejudice is not part of the dictionary definition (this has been pointed out before). People self-identify as anti-American: an editor in these pages did so. In the right context, I would self-identify as anti-American, and I know others who do so more strongly. Such people are not calling themselves prejudiced. All this has been pointed out before....
• This results in bias and a contradiction: "it should cover opposition and dissent against every single aspect of the US." Coupled with your previous comment, you are implying all opposition and dissent is prejudiced.
• This comment is also unacceptable and shows bias: "Obviously this article is going to be non-neutral in general terms as it's going to be demonstrating a worldwide antithesis to America." All Wikipedia article must be neutral, period. It is not the purpose of this article to "demonstrate" bias or antithesis toward America: that would entail taking sides in many political debates.
• There are 5 tags in dispute, not 3. Warning templates don't require consensus. --Bsharvy (talk) 04:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Given that the dictionary definition of prejudice is:

1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.
6. –verb (used with object) to affect with a prejudice, either favorable or unfavorable: His honesty and sincerity prejudiced us in his favor.

...I'd say that "anti" is pretty much summed up in the above definition wouldn't you? But then again you probably won't, as rationality and logic don't seem to be your strong points. And yes, opposition to something is demonstrating prejudice to that something, ie you have an unfavourable opinion of it.

I've noticed in some of your other contributions on other articles that you frequently come up with the supposition that if you don't know it or haven't experienced it then it doesn't exist. This is both wrong and is original research. It doesn't matter what you do or don't don't identify with, and this is your problem. You are so steeped in POV that you are unable to see the middle ground.

Re article neutrality, well it seems you are labouring under a misapprehension there. The subject of an article can be non-neutral, but the explanation of that subject cannot be. You are mixing the two up. The subject of the article is antithesis to the US, therefore it must be explained in a neutral way without introducing bias that isn't already in the article's subject. For example an editor cannot write that he supports the view of the subject, he can only describe what it is not what he thinks it is.

All of the tags are in dispute, but only 3 make any sense (regardless of whether they are right or wrong). The uncyclopaedic one was explained to you further up. And as far as today's reversions go, are you being deliberately disruptive. Undoing cited text to replace the citation with the fact tag that had just been replaced by the citation. What planet are you on, your edits are not making sense other than the premise that you are being deliberately obtuse and vandalistic. --WebHamster 04:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong: "And yes, opposition to something is demonstrating prejudice to that something. " That's your problem. --Bsharvy (talk) 05:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What makes Warning tags not to require consense? Who desides on warning tags? Should we have an article full of warning tags just because some editor does not agree with the article theme? What you are saying is against common sense. And we should follow WikiCommonSense to presrve WP:NPOV. Please follow the spirit of the law not the letter of the law, as stated in Wikipedia guidelines. Igor Berger (talk) 04:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Warnings tags frequently indicate that something is in dispute in the article. That wouldn't make sense if they required consensus. The tag WebHamster hates the most says: "An editor has expressed concern that this article or section may be unencyclopedic and should be deleted." There is no suggestion that all editors agree it should be deleted. That wouldn't make any sense: it would just be deleted. --Bsharvy (talk) 05:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have an issue with an editor expressing conserns that this article is unecyclopedic and should be deleted then AFD it and have the discussion there. If not please remove the tag. Igor Berger (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

*Igor, I appreciate your effort to negotiate a middle ground. You don't seem to be aware of the recent history of this dispute. I have already created an AFD, and we already had the discussion there. I put the warning template on the page after that process. Everything has been according to procedure, except the refusal of some editors to allow the use of warning tags. The AfD discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Americanism

* Webhamster has been blocked for edit warring. Let's take that as a message to stop blanking the notices that much of this article is in dispute. You know, much of this article is in dispute. --Bsharvy (talk) 10:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But you refuse to accept the verdict of the AfD discussion which was to keep the article. You and two other editors (which two editors we haven't heard from lately) wanted the article deleted but were outvoted by a majority of other editors. Rather than accept this decision, however, you want to perpetuate your grievance in perpetuity by adding tags. Your statement above that "Some problems are systemic and can't be fixed by simple editing" evidentally means that you want the tags here to remain forever - as apart from 'simple editing' whatever other way do we have on the wikipedia to improve an article? Colin4C (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I just read the article top to buttom and it looks NPOV. It is not biased towards Anti-Americanism. What this means is, it does not show hatefulness or prejudice to American people. It just describes the political theory -ism of how the world sees American political and socioeconomic behaviour. It does not take sides in the argument that America is good or bad! Igor Berger (talk) 11:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I like to make a suggestion. Instead of arguing about the warning tags we should just keep building the article. Once we feel the aticle is up to par, bring to WP:GA review and let others decided of the encyclopedic value of this article. Edit warring about warning tags just detract from the improvement of the article. It is just a waste of time! Igor Berger (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article is NPOV. Therefore I am removing the neutrality tag. Colin4C (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The tag says "Its neutrality is disputed." Make the case that the neutrality of this article is not disputed, please. Not the case for your opinion that the article is neutral, but the case that nobody disputes your opinion. Better yet, stop obstructing editors who want to notify readers of what is in dispute, and instead try to work toward resolving the disputes. First start: Produce a neutral, complete, consensus description of anti-Americanism. Not a paraphrase of the dictionary. It needs to specify whether this article is mainly about prejudice. It needs to specify whether the article inlcudes objection to US policies and laws. And so on. --Bsharvy (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is YOU who added the tags, not me, therefore it is for YOU to justify them, something you seem conspicuously reluctant to do. But here's your chance, now. Please state below, in detail, your reasons for disputing the neutrality of the article: Colin4C (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Colin please see the AFD. Lots of people who didn't vote to delete (like me) said it wasn't neutral. Rachel63 (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Rachel I participated in the AFD! The reasons given for deleting the article were rejected as spurious by the majority and the discussion there is now closed. Please state your reasons HERE why you believe this article is not neutral. If not I will report you for your persistantly disruptive edits. Colin4C (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My "mass removals"

Wikipedia:Attribution. "Any unsourced material may be removed". Your move. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 04:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Check the diffs, your revert removed citations and replaced them with fact/citation tags. The article has been edited since your last version, your reversion nuked those edits, therefore it is in effect vandalism... your move. May I suggest you source the info instead of deleting it wholesale? --WebHamster 04:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as your mass revert of my work reverted removal of dead refs, copyvios, grammar and formatting edits. May I suggest more carefulness to both of us? --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 04:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I trust Saber is doing a good job in cleaning up the article. I would like us to show him support and give him any assistence that he may need. Igor Berger (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

So all the referenced material he deleted has to go? All the hard effort of other editors here is to be trashed? No other editors opinions as to the value of the deleted referenced material count? If you check the article rather than relying on Saber's puff you will see that Saber's deletions are based on his abitrary POV. Saber does not own this article. And contra his assertion it is not wikipedia policy to remove all quotes from an article. As I have said over and over again, this is a VERY good article. Colin4C (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you'd actually have read my edit summaries they state quite clearly that I do not see the connection between critcism of U.S. foreign policy and anti-Americanism, which is the base for most of my deletions of sourced material. If you disagree with this you are free to restore the relevant sections and work toward a consensus, they are all available in the page history. What I oppose is the entire reversion of my good faith edits which generally served the removal of unsourced material and copyvios (the lengthy quotes). The Oscar Wilde quote serves absolutely no purpose either, not in the way it was presented. My general formatting hopefully wasn't something disagreeable.

Unsourced material does NOT make a good article, it is in contradiction with Wikipedia's basic principles. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 13:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at what he removed and what I examined was nonsense. If you want to go back and examine everyone of his edits and if you find an issue, bring it here and we can discuss it to be reinserted into the article. Work together to improve the article not to edit war about the article encyclopedic value. Igor Berger (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to critisize U.S. foreign policy create an article by that name Critcism of U.S. foreign policy Igor Berger (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere and as you can check if you look at the edit history the absurd edit which Saber objected to: "it is anti-American to be pro-life, since that constitutes opposition and hostility to the culture and policies of United States" was added by our friend Bsharvy just four days ago and almost immediately reverted. It is not indicative of the rest of the article - which is very good. Colin4C (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well add what you want back! What the anti-American Canadian rant? It had no references but OR! Igor Berger (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that, inter alia, I am somewhat mystified by Saber's use of the term 'quotefarm'. Is there some wikipedia policy against quotes that I know nothing of? Quotes are often used in academic papers, books, encyclopedias etc - I had no idea that they were the height of wickedness. Colin4C (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked for the term "quotefarm" in this discussion and couldn't find it. Still, regarding {{quotefarm}}, see WP:QUOTE. Sometimes an article in the process of development over-quotes sources as material is initially added, with subsequent WP:CLEANUP work replacing the quoted material with attributed summaries of their substance. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As I suspected, wikipedia policy DOES NOT state that quotes are the origin of all evil. Here is a quotation (boo! hiss!) from WP:QUOTE: "Quotations are a fundamental attribute of Wikipedia. Quotes provide a direct source of information or insight". What does Saber have to say to that I wonder? Colin4C (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't that you're citing quotes, but the amount in which it is done. It's way over the line of whatever copyright law we're following. When there's more quoted than self-written text in a section it is wrong. The article would be way better if you take the essence of the cited material and condense it into a comprehensive piece of text. I'm not very good at English so I stick to removing copyvios and leave them in as refs. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 12:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

♠ Please, please, please.....my brothers and sisters!! Let us be reasonable with one another. Let's do it my way.  ;) Peace. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 18:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy Tag

Editors, please list here anything in this article that you think is factually inaccurate so we can rectify it and then delete the tag Colin4C (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC) :

Original Research Tag

Editors, if you feel that anything in the article represents original research, please list it here so that we can rectify it and then remove the tag Colin4C (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC) :

Unpublished synthesis tag

Concern has been expressed that there is an unpublished synthesis in this article of published material that conveys ideas not verifiable with the given sources. Please provide specific details of this here so that we can rectify it and then delete the tag Colin4C (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC) :

Neutrality Tag

Do you have any NPOV issues with this article? If so please state them here so that we can address them and then rectify them Colin4C (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2008 (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. {3 of the first 4 references} 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. -- {This article} is essentialy a free-association on a dictionary definition, with various "sources" haphazzardly tossed in. The sources tend to be essays, and as such merely document claims about how people have interpreted the term. An encyclopedia article needs to be more than report on interpretations of a term. The article tends to present these interpretations in passive-voice weasel words, e.g. "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." Reference [3] for that claim is just an essay in which somebody says that. There is no partocilar reason to think this is a definining, prominent, or correct usage of the term, or an important theory. Another example: "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.[6]" Passive voice weasel-words, not indicating why the topic is actually meaningful. Most of the presentation is also slanted to present criticism of the US as bigotry. It also consistently misrepresents the subject of much so-called anti-American sentiment. Many of the examples are objections to American hegemony, not American culture per se. For example, people object to small family-run restaraunts in a small country going out of business because of the influx of Pizza Huts and Burger Kings. That is not fairly represented as "hostility to American culture"; it is an objection to American hegemony. There is a difference. Frankly, the article smacks of a right-wing political agenda. I question whether it would serve a useful purpose even if cleaned up. The term "anti-Americanism" is highly interpretive, corrupted by political ideology, and denotes no clearly defined set of phenomena. This article should be deleted -- 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 encyclopedia 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.

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?

Catgirl's suggestion that anti-Americanism is like racism is exactly why this article is hopeless. I don't think anti-Americanism is like racism or bigotry at all, and neither do any of the people I know who self-identify as anti-American. Neither do some prominent commentators, like Noam Chomsky (he says the opposite, that the label denotes bigotry against those who criticize US policies). So: to say anti-Americanism is bigotry is POV-pushing. To say anti-Americanism is not bigotry is POV-pushing. There is nothing that can be said that isn't POV-pushing. The only non-POV apporach is a usage guide, and that is not encyclopedic.

As for Mattbuck's comment: What "worldwide sentiment" does it document? Sentiment about the meaning of the term? That makes the article an elaborate dictionary entry: not encyclopedic. Sentiment about a phenomenon? What phenomenon? Nobody agrees. -- I've worked on several controversial articles, but none of them had this one's main problem. When I worked on the Bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki article, it was very heated, edit wars, etc. BUT: everybody knew what the bombings were. Nobody can agree on what phenomenon we are talking about when we talk about anti-Americanism. It simply isn't a term that denotes anything precisely. Disagreeing with the war in Iraq is called anti-American, so is wanting to commit mass genocide against Americans, so is objecting to a Starbucks replacing a family-run cafe in Paris. There is nothing coherent here. -- The problem isn't that "anti-Americanism" never refers to anything; the problem is that refers to just about anything--something racist, something reasonable, political dissent, terrorism, Burger King.... Pasting a list of article names which contain the term "anti-Americanism" (and many which don't) doesn't advance the discussion. I daresay many deleted articles have topics which appear in the titles of papers. -- I guess I wasn't clear, but I'm not sure how to be clearer. Anti-Americanism is not like abortion, because everybody knows what abortion is (in a non-scientific sense). The disagreements don't center on what is abortion. In contrast, every assertion of what is anti-Americanism constitutes POV-pushing. That is why the article never actually says what is anti-Americanism, other than quoting one dictionary. That is why almost every single claim the article makes about anti-Americanism must be in weasel words: "It has been suggested that anti-Americanism is....". If the editors cannot say, in their own words, what their topic is, they cannot write an article about it. -- The majority of the term's usage is an interpretation. It is an interpretation to say the French want to limit American influence because they dislike America. It is an interpretation to say people oppose the Iraq war because of hostility toward America. It may be objective to say terrorism against Americans is anti-Americanism. But is any editor willing to say, in the article, which claims of anti-Americanism are objectively grounded and which are not? No, because that would be POV-pushing. Nobody can write a neutral, complete description of anti-Americanism and that means nobody can a neutral article on it.

Edit: adding my sig --Bsharvy (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't neutral because it suggests that being opposed to any aspect of the US is prejudice. Also the word itself just can't be applied in a neutral way. It's an accusation. So, this article is accusing people and groups of prejudice when it calls them anti-American. Rachel63 (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The subject of an article can be non-neutral, it's the narrative that can't in relation to the topic itself. I do wish you could understand that. --WebHamster 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The narrative in relation to the topic itself isn't neutral, because the narrative accuses people of prejudice. I do wish you could get that through your thick egotistical skull. Rachel63 (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Now now, we wouldn't want you getting blocked for personal attacks now would we? We'll save that for the editors who think you are Bsharvy's sockpuppet. Regardless, I thought we'd already covered the fact that being anti something is being prejudiced against that something. Look further up, you'll see the dictionary definition. People being anti-American are prejudiced against America, that's why they are anti it. Being prejudiced isn't just about disliking someone for their colour, or for their religion. Someone who is anti-American is prejudiced towards Americans. Is English your second language? --WebHamster 02:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So 'Rachel' you agree exactly with Bsarvy? You are using exactly the same spurious arguments viz "Nobody can write a neutral, complete description of anti-Americanism and that means nobody can [write] a neutral article on it." Do you - like Bsarvy - think the article should have been deleted and that because that endeavor failed it should have tags on it for all time? The arguments used in the POV attempt to get this article deleted were found to be unjustified. The article was found to be worthy and therefore can be edited like any other article. Affixing permanent tags to articles is against wikipedia policy. 12:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Colin4C (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is some seasonally affective process at work on Anti-Americanism. Every spring for the last four years there has been a flare-up on this article (last year it was in May)... Another flare-up often occurs in the fall.

I digress. The lead and Use of the term have been gone over repeatedly for a few years. They follow a clear A, not-A structure. It's a belief system (A); it can't be isolated as definite phenomenon (not-A); it's comparable to antisemitism (A); it's a propaganda term (not-A). In short, the opening sections try to balance widely divergent viewpoints. (I have added a covering note for the first sentence: all of people, policies, and culture get mentioned in relation to the topic.)

I won't speak for the body, which has changed over time. It doesn't seem too bad at the moment, although some things appear to have been lost to shortening. The problems with American service personnel in Korea and Japan were clearly worth a mention. Australia, by contrast, should be shortened to maybe two sentences. Marskell (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism the definition

With regards to User:Bsharvy conserns, I realized Anti-Americanism as hatrated and hostility towards American people definition is wrong.

I recommend this to be written to the article, but as you know the article has been protected from editing!

Anti-Americanism is not being prejudice against American people but a political ideology opposing American Imperialism.

Replace this, and it will make the article more encyclopidic--->

It is not, "Anti-Americanism, often anti-American sentiment, is opposition or hostility to the people or culture of the United States"

Please read, American exceptionalism

It is like anti-zionism. It is an ideology that opposes a zionist ideology, not a hostility and hatrated towards zionist.

Check out this satirical poem by Kipling, The White Man's Burden. It will help you understand the Anti-Americanism political idiology. Igor Berger (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism is different things to different people. There are people who consider themselves anti-America, who have hostility toward the people, and others who have a hostility toward its ideals. Some are hostile towards both. It's a subjective term, so all common uses should be included, and are. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:39, 10 Mar 2008 (UTC)

What you saying makes sense. Maybe we should combine your definition with mine.Igor Berger (talk)

The current definition in the article already covers all uses: "...opposition or hostility to the people, culture or policies..." Equazcion •✗/C • 14:55, 10 Mar 2008 (UTC)

So just unprotect it, it is kind of silly to protect everything in site! If someone edit wars it, in support of their POV, they know were to go. I only did one edit to the article..:) Igor Berger (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: once you have agreed on a text, you may add {{editprotected}} here. Also, I've asked the admin who locked the article for more explanation. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the current definition already covers all uses. There's no need to request an edit. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:05, 10 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Does opposition to Israeli policies constitute anti-semitism? I wouldn't think so. Same thing goes for opposition to U.S. policies, it's entirely unrelated. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 17:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree but this article is not about our own opinions (original research) but what other authors attempt to convey when they use the term 'Anti-Americanism'. They may be way off beam or illogical but its not our place to correct them. We don't have to engage in the controversy ourselves in order to report it. I have strong views on American Imperialism etc etc but I am not going to use this article as a platform to broadcast them. Colin4C (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oposition to the creation of the State of Israel is anti-zionism, because the political ideology of zionism supports the creation of Israel and states that all Jewish people should go back to their homeland. Saber, when you say anti-semitism you are talking about a race of people not the state policy of those people. A movement to eradicate Jewish people would be seen as anti-semitism. Any hatred imposed on those people would be seen as anti-semitism. We should add American imperialism to the article. It is not up to us to agree or disagree with the political view. It is not original research, as you can see the anti-Americanism movement started long time ago, as supported by Kipling's poem. Igor Berger (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The current definition has some problems:

1. It logically includes pro-life activism (opposition/hostility to policy), yet common usage doesn't
2. It doesn't specify prejudice, yet the article does later on, and the article tends to assume it means prejudice
3. Having a coherent subject for an article isn't the same as having a complete defintiion for a word. A single term can have multiple definitions that require different articles. I don't see any connection at al between prejudiced interest in terrorism against innocent Americans and an anti-war protest, yet we write about them here as if they are the same thing

• Another general problem with this article is that it calls things anti-American. Wikipedia absolutely cannot make accusations of prejudice in political matters, and generally shouldn't be making interpretations of political matters either. Yet, all claims of anti-Amricanism are an interpretation.
• Finally, this article is heavily biased toward presenting all criticism of the US as "anti-Americanism" in the sense of prejudice. It pays little attention to the reasons people have for their opposition, such as being anti-superpower, or anti-hegemony. It dismisses these ideas with the label, i.e. the article advances the use of the term as pro-America propaganda. --Bsharvy (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I requested mediation about 24 hours ago. I assumed the page block stemmed from that, but maybe not. So far, I haven't seen any response from the Wikipedia:MC --Bsharvy (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It logically includes pro-life activism? I don't quite follow. Are you saying that it logically includes every possible political viewpoint held by any American person? The definition points to an overall encapsulation of American culture, which will of course include many, many things. That doesn't necessarily mean that saying "Anti-America" means "Anti-Chevy", "Anti-Ketchup", or "Anti-Anti-Abortion" specifically. It's a more general term. Your interpretation seems like a nitpicky stretch of technicality. As for the specific reasons for Anti-Americanism, I think it's time you added a section on that to the article, perhaps with subsections for each individual reason you just named. I think that would be a good addition to the article. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:59, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

The definition: "...opposition or hostility to the people, culture or policies of the United States." Pro-life activism is oppostion/hostility to a policy of the United States. Why is it less anti-American than opposition to a military action? --Bsharvy (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't repeat the same question and avoid what I just said. I raised some very specific points just now and I'd appreciate not having to repeat them. Kindly respond to them. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:22, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how anything you said was applicable to what I said. Chevies and ketchup are not policy. --Bsharvy (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The definition includes culture, too, not just policy. So by your reasoning, this definition denotes that Anti-American means Anti-ketchup or Anti-hot dogs. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:20, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

OK, the definition as written may include being anti-Chevy or anti-hot-dog. When Americans got pissed at France a few years ago and boycotted Bourdeux wine and ate "Freedom Fries", that was anti-French according to the general "anti-" definition around here. So if being anti-Bourdeux and anti-"French"-fries is anti-French, then being anti-Chevy and anti-hot-dog can be anti-American. --Bsharvy (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad we could settle this :) Equazcion •✗/C • 03:56, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Just to avoid further fighting over article tags:

The specific tags posted at this article are to inform people of certain possibilities. There is a possibility that the article is unencyclopedic. It is evidenced merely by an editor feeling that way, and the tag says as much, very clearly. It isn't something that needs consensus in order to appear, and a previous "Keep" at AfD, even for the reason that is was deemed encyclopedic, does not allay all present and future concerns that article may still be, or still become, unencyclopedic. So please kindly leave this and other tags alone, at least for now. As long as an article issue is the subject of discussion on its talk page, a tag that expresses a concern over it should be allowed to stay. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:51, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

From what I am reading on the article talk page, Bsharvey does raise valid points. I like what you said about leaving the tags alone. We should all get over the tags and discuss the article. I hope other editors do the same and we can start improving the article not warring over a tag! Igor Berger (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So if an editor adds another 5 tags is it forbidden to other editors to remove them? I am saying this because Bsharvy has just added another tag as soon as the article was unprotected. Can he add as many tags as he likes without providing justification for them on the Talk page? For instance should the factual accuracy tag stay despite no one listing even one item which they even suspect is not factual here on the Talk page? Is the number of tags here dependent on Bsarvy whims? He stated above that this article couldn't be improved by editing: "Some problems are systemic and can't be fixed by simple editing" therefore he must want the tags to be a permanent fixture - as editing is the only way that articles can be improved. Is it wikipedia policy to have good articles like this one lumbered with a tag-farm because one editor wants them there but can't be bothered to justify them by examples? Even though he lost the deletion debate this article is still branded unencyclopediac on his say so. Does he have an absolute veto on other peoples opinions on whether this article is encyclopediac forever? This is a very good article and one editors POV shouldn't dictate how the article should be edited. I repeat: according to Bsharvy's philosophy this article CAN'T be improved, even if Einstein himself edited it: "Some problems are systemic and can't be fixed by simple editing". If we accept Bsarvy's view the tags have to remain permanent fixtures: absolutely contrary to wikipedia policies. As to possibilities: there is a possibility that every article in the wikipedia has same supposed faults as this one. To be logical all wikipedia articles should have as many tags as this one. Colin4C (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Bsharvy has stated things he finds inaccurate -- the definition discussion above is an example. I'm beginning to think the "unencyclopedic" tag is questionable, due to its unique wording -- it states that an editor thinks the article should be deleted, yet we have such a recent failed AfD; I think since a failed AfD shows consensus that the article should not be deleted, such a statement probably doesn't belong in this article. I won't remove the tag myself, but I'd be fine with someone else removing it. It may even be appropriate, since it seems unclear what the tags refer to specifically, for them to all be removed and then replaced one at a time should en editor feel the need -- however if anyone does replace a tag, they should justify it here first by stating specific reasons and context within the article. That's how I'd handle this, if asked. Again I'm not going to do this myself, but would support it if someone else did it. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:56, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Just to add that obeying the will of the minority rather than the majority raises fascinating philosophical and practical issues. It would mean that if in the Deletion debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Americanism the votes had been six for deletion and three against deletion, rather than what did happen - six against and three for - then the article should have been kept. If one believes that the we should obey the will of the minority rather than the majority then this outcome logically follows and should be implemented in all wikipedia articles. Colin4C (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Just to avoid further fighting over article tags:

The specific tags posted at this article are to inform people of certain possibilities. There is a possibility that the article is unencyclopedic. It is evidenced merely by an editor feeling that way, and the tag says as much, very clearly. It isn't something that needs consensus in order to appear, and a previous "Keep" at AfD, even for the reason that is was deemed encyclopedic, does not allay all present and future concerns that article may still be, or still become, unencyclopedic. So please kindly leave this and other tags alone, at least for now. As long as an article issue is the subject of discussion on its talk page, a tag that expresses a concern over it should be allowed to stay."

• Good ideas. Take your own advice. --Bsharvy (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I'm sorry you're having trouble dealing with that. If consensus was that the article is encyclopedic, the article is encyclopedic. It would be one thing if the failed AfD were a long time ago, but this was not even a month ago. If everyone handled that the way you are, every article with a failed AfD would see its Delete voters continuing to tag those articles as unencyclopedic. Thankfully though, in most cases, those people seem to handle not getting their way in a more dignified manner. You're coming dangerously close to a 3RR violation, just in case you were unaware. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:31, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I second Equazcion comment, if Bsharvy does not wish to follow the consensus of all the editors we should bring this issue to ANI. Igor Berger (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• There is no consensus that the article is encyclopedic. There was not even a consensus that the article should be preserved. A majority is not consensus. Voting to "Keep" is not the same as voting that the article in its present state is encyclopedic. Warning tags are not supposed to reflect consensus: they alert readers about what is in dispute. Whether this article, in its current state, is encyclopedic is in dispute. Whether the topic, in general, is encyclopedic is also in dispute.
• You don't seem to understand the difference between 1) majority and consensus, 2) voting to delete and thinking the current article is unencyclopedic but fixable, and 3) the article in its current state and the topic in general.
• You also don't seem to understand the very recent history of this discussion. Less than a week ago, there were 3 editors defending the warning tags, and 1-2 deleting them; now there are 2-3 editors deleting them and 1 defending them; in a month there may be more defending than deleting, and a month after that vice-versa. Your idea that the majority of the last 2 days gets what it wants is disruptive.
• The tags should express the legitimate conerns that have been expressed, including the concerns of minorities. The way to get rid of those tags is to address those concerns, not start edit wars over warning tags.
• By all means, bring the issue to ANI. Maybe you'll get a Wikipedia 101 lesson in the difference between consensus and majority. --Bsharvy (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

1) One vocal editor in disagreement does not a dispute make. 2) The wording of the tag is not one of maintenance needed but one of deletion needed. Since consensus was that the article should not be deleted, a tag saying it should doesn't belong. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:25, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppets?

Are Bsharvy and Rachel63 sockpuppets. I have looked at their contributions log and they both contribute to Anti-Americanism and Korean culture articles with specificity to the consumption of dog meat. The probability of two otherwise unrelated editors having a synchronicity of obscure interests seems to me improbable. Whilst this doesn't necessarily prove bad faith by these 2 editors (or is that 1), it does raise concerns about how these abuses can be detected and the issues can be investigated if necessary.

--Theo Pardilla 08:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on the pattern of reverts, I created Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy. More evidence re: dog meat etc would be welcome there. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:01, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• You want to file a 3rr violation on Rachel163 here or add to the sock case? Igor Berger (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• 3RR does nothing for the sock case. I'm curious to see if we'd see any edits by Bsharvy while Rachel63's IP is blocked, but I won't file a 3RR just for that. Let's see how the sockpuppet case pans out. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:25, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • She just filed an ANI case against you Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Equazcion:_Harrassment_and_Edit_Warring Which is total disruption and deserves an indef block. Igor Berger (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism as a racist term

If agreed we can add a subsection to the use of the term section Anti-Americanism#Use_of_the_term. We can have a small subsection with examples how the term is used as a racism term. Of course we will need to reference it. Igor Berger (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can find references then go ahead, but I doubt its use in that way, and I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about. But don't try to explain it to me, just let us know if you have a reference, because otherwise this is moot. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:33, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I actually doubt its usage in this way as well, but being that Saber brought it up I thought we may have this section if references can be established for its usage in such respect. Maybe anti-American racial sentiment? Igor Berger (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Saber was just drawing a parallel to illustrate an example of his definition. He wasn't saying anti-Americanism is ever actually racist, just that it's similar in some ways. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:03, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I agree, while it maybe similar it is not the same. And it is easy, for a casual observer to make a presumption that it is. So no need for this section. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert to pre edit war version: 194848300 By Colin4C 29 Feb

I have restored the page to the last February edit because of the rampage by disruptive and destructive editors in a mini 'edit war.' This restores deleted text before most of the 'edit war' changes were made. I apologise to good faith interim editors as this reversion is necessary due to the extensive changes made that cannot be undone otherwise without complicated disentanglement and lots of work. This does not indicate that this version is optimal or preferred but simply that it reverts to before the corruptions of the 'edit war'.

--Theo Pardilla 09:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was nothing but disruptive and I've reverted it as such. Don't revert to a week-old revision without very good reasons, i.e. heavy vandalism etc. The only things there's been an edit war about were the same old tags above the lead. Everything else was fine and generally accepted with discussion on the talk page. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 09:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Saber, we all trying to revert Bsharvy and Rachel edits, do not feel bad about your edits being reverted. Right now the article is protected in the wrong version of BsHarvy. Your work to the article is good, and we will try to fix it all once the POV stops. Igor Berger (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Europe section that was removed needs to be put back. It was quite well-sourced. The reason for removal didn't make much sense to me. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:47, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

The Europe section hasn't even been removed, only the parts which predominantly insinuate that the declining approval of U.S. actions in Europe equals anti-Americanism. If you disagree with this, we're back at how to actually define the term. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 11:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a section on Middle-East that is missing, that Bsharvy manged to delete here You better recheck the article, because I remember she deleted another chuck, just do not recall what. Everytime she put the unencyclopidic tag, she deleted some section in the act. So please recheck the article. Igor Berger (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The term is subjective, as I've stated. You think people who disapprove of US foreign actions dont consider themselves anti-american? You think there isn't at least a significant portion of those who do? Again, subjective -- the article should include any significant usage. Just because you don't like that definition doesn't mean it isn't used that way. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:00, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I highly disapprove of U.S. foreign policy but that does not make me anti-American. I highly disapprove of Israeli foreign policy but that does not make me anti-Semitic. I highly disapprove of Russian foreign policy (and so on). I believe your version of the definition is wrong, it hasn't anything to do with whether I "like" it or not. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 12:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay Saber, let's not go on tanget here but go back to edit thee article. You where doing a good job in keeping it NPOV, and I hope you can continue building it. Unfortunetly it was reverted to the AfD keep and pre Bsharvy edit warring. How can we rebuild the information that was deleted from the article because some of it was really good. I actually like Theo version here What do you think, can you extract the information or revert to that version. Igor Berger (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No we can not. The only one who was doing any major editing in the actual article was me. That edit reverted everything. There's no information to be extracted, there's no reason to revert to that version, it only adds a pile of crappy unsourced WP:OR. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 12:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So revert it to the version that you think is best, and we will address others conserns from that point. Igor Berger (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No one needs to revert anything when there's no real reason to, if you want to salvage anything of what I removed you're free to do so through the article history, but keep it sourced. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 12:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Saber, I wasn't describing "my" definition, I was describing a possible definition. Anti-Americanism can mean a disapproval of culture or policy -- what grounds are there to exclude one or the other? Equazcion •✗/C • 12:33, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

There's the disagreement, I do not believe that disapproval of policy equals anti-anything. I don't know what dictionary is most trustworthy, but that's what you'd need to convince me otherwise. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 12:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that Anti-American means against things that are American -- which includes policies ("American policies"). If not, then can you describe to me what your interpretation of anti-(something) is? What does it mean (to you) when someone says they're anti-Russian or anti-Asian? Equazcion •✗/C • 12:56, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

The first issue is [1]. "America" is everything of the Americas, not just the U.S. U.S. and Canadian policies differ, both are part of the Americas. The second issue and my answer to your question is that anti-(something) equals opposition and hostility to a nation or area's culture or people. Policies are politics and on a entirely different level. Anti-Americanism is more comparable to racism than it is to e.g. leftism. But again, this is my own version of the definition, which I can't guarantee to be correct. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 13:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If that's just your own definition, and the term is subjective, why not include all uses? Besides which, from a technical standpoint, anti-American should be "against things that are American". That really includes everything, policies and all. As for "the Americas", yes those lands are called "the Americas" but they are not called "American", and neither are their countries. Canada is never called American. Brazil isn't called American. American refers to the United States. Just like American politics -- you're excluding that for some arbitrary reason that is not valid for our purposes. You feel that it's on a "different level" than everything else -- but that's just your feeling, which is neither here nor there. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:13, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

We should not be infusing racism commentary into the article. Although some reference should be made to it, I think we should deal more with policies that make over nations develop the anti-American sentiments, which may not necessary be atributed to racism. Igor Berger (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There we disagree too. The U.S., Canada, Mexico, Chilé, Brazil etc are all American nations on the American continents. They're called North and South America for good reasons. Whether people generally think that "American" = U.S. or not is irrelevant, we're going for the correct form. And in all honesty, your definition is really just your own version of it as well. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 13:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Princeton.edu WordNet - "anti-American: opposed to the United States and its policies". I hope that can be the end of this dispute. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:35, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Obviously. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 13:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Princeton reference: Language is a living entity and is not defined from on high by an authority but rather its a description of its usage in its various forms across a population.

If a majority of US citizens oppose US government policy does it therefore follow that these people are Anti-American? If these same policies are opposed by foreigners does that make them Anti-American? If the US government opposes the will of the majority of US citizens does it therefore follow that the US government is Anti-American? Or are the majority of US citizens whose will it opposes Anti-American? When foreigners support the will of the majority of US citizens and oppose US government policy does it therefore follow that these foreigners are Anti-American? Or are foreigners Anti-American when they oppose the will of the majority of US citizens and support U.S. government policy?--Theo Pardilla 06:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The lead sentence of this article defines anti-americanism, for purposes of this article, as "opposition or hostility to the people, culture or policies of the United States." Given that, I think the answer to all of your questions is "yes". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It is anti-American policy, not prejudice or hostility towards American people. Igor Berger (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your definition apparently differs from the article's lead sentence definition. The lead sentence definition is "opposition or hostility to the people, culture or policies of the United States." (emphasis supplied) should the article content follow the article's definition or should it follow your definition? Should the article's definition be changed to conform to your definition? Does it make any sense at all to have an article about a subject when there is disagreement among editors about what the subject is? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not about any individuals definition but rather whether the definition reflects the various usages and whether it clarifies implicit assumptions and inferences drawn by a varied readership who bring their own perceptions to a reading of the article about a term laden with multiple meanings.--Theo Pardilla 06:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its time to update the definition. If the U.S. government criticizes the people, culture or even its own policies or those of a previous administration does that make it Anti-American? Is it possible for anyone foreign or indigenous to criticize anything about America and not be Anti-American? If a Democrat or Republican criticizes their own sides policies are they Anti-American? And what if they criticize the other sides policies? Would this vary if the criticism was from a foreigner and why? It seems to be implied in the article and introduction that Anti-Americanism is practiced by foreigners. It needs to be stated explicitly, for clarity, whether it applies only to foreign criticism or also to criticism by American citizens. Its application to power centers and government policy is doctrinal rather than literal and simply vulgar propaganda whilst its application as a universal term is literal rather than doctrinal but also ludicrous, therefore the definition needs to be clarified across these two facets.--Theo Pardilla 06:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

break #1

American people critiszing American policy or another group of American people for their political ideology, is anti-Americanism. We are not talking about one people not liking another people, we are talking about ideology! Igor Berger (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Anti-Americanism is an ideology same like Liberalism Igor Berger (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are unclear, at least to me, whether you believe criticizing a specific aspect of America means that the critic is practicing an ideological position or alternatively whether the person claiming that the critic is Anti-American is practicing an ideological position for claiming that the critic is Anti-American. It seems to me that criticism may be valid, invalid, true, false, moral, immoral, democratic, undemocratic, well intended, malevolent or have any other number of motives or characteristics but i just do not understand how any and all criticism must therefore be explained as ideological. You have to accept deeply ideological or even totalitarian assumptions not to laugh at this. If you criticize, say, American socialists it doesn't mean that you are anti American it means only that that you are criticizing American socialists. If you support the current federal government administrations policies it doesn't mean that you are pro American and equally if a socialist administration were elected whose policies you opposed it would not mean that you were Anti-American but simply that you support or oppose those policies.If one criticizes socialists with the same policies from a different country, say, Norwegian, Venezuelan or South African it doesn't mean that one is Anti that nation or even that ones criticism is ideological, it may be ideological, but you would have to know what the criticism was specifically and what the motivations of the critic were or alternatively whether it was part of a doctrinal or ideological belief system. If one is opposed to, for arguments sake and i will make up a policy here, say, Igorbergers 'leaving the toilet seat up' policy it doesnt mean that one is Anti-Igorberger but just that one is opposed to that particular policy. .--Theo Pardilla 07:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you! I am talking about when the criticism becomes a political movement and it is viewed as such by the whole world and is labeled as an Anti-Americanism ideology. Not because liberals do not agree with neoconservatists how American foreign policy should be, that is not anti-Americanism. I think we are being stuck on semantics.Igor Berger (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the American extreme ideology of 1920's and 30' support for fascism may be viewed as anti-Americanism. What do you think, or are we going on a fork here? Igor Berger (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec*2)I've been listening today to Bill O'Reilly rant about "Obama's anti-american Minister" and watching him play clips of said minister ranting "Not God Bless America — God Damn America!!!" etc. Googling around, I see this O'Reilly Talking Points article titled "Legitimate Dissent vs. Anti-American Dishonesty", and this list of google hits on "anti-american" on billoreilley.com. Don't have the time to do anything with this right now, but thought I'd mention it. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can take any ideology term and turn it into a propaganda term. You can say Zionist...blah, blah...Liberals...Fascists...blah, blah...etc. Igor Berger (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Also be very careful what you find in Google. Google indexing is not NPOV, and anyone can manipulate Google index to promote a political agenda, or any other agenda. Just because we see something more prominent and more vast in Google does not make it more reliable and more Truth. We have to apply Wikipedia NPOV to it. Igor Berger (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Google results will sorted according to ones previous page viewing history and will tend over time to present pages with viewpoints that one agrees with, because of the history of pages that are viewed and search terms used, as compared to searches from a generic or clean environment (web browser cookies).

Quite apart from that, a universal psychological mechanism called the confirmation bias means that people seek out or absorb ideas that are aligned with what they already believe. To counter this universal bias requires active searching for and integration of beliefs that you disagree with. And therefore presenting evidence that supports your beliefs but not presenting evidence that opposes them is not proof of your beliefs but is in fact confirmation of your bias.

Its a partisan term in addition to being propaganda like many terms of public discourse.--Theo Pardilla 08:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

I have cut the following as trivial:

"Miscomprehension of the naming conventions in the UK has added to this problem, with England, Britain and the UK often being interchangeable, and even occasionally the assumption that a Home Nation is part of England. ^[1] It is also not unusual to see references to 'Prime Minister Brown' or 'Prime Minister Blair'^[2] , something which has since seeped into the UK media, despite the correct address being "the Rt. Hon. xxxx, the Prime Minister".^[3]

People in Britain also do not like the way that Americanisations are creeping into the English language, with key examples being train station (instead of railway station) and spellings like sulfur instead of sulphur creeping into children's education. For full details, see American and British English spelling differences."

An extended discursion on spelling differences does not seem germane to the topic. Marskell (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Wreaks of OR anyway. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:34, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Just what I like to see. Americans making decisions on what's trivial when it comes to anti-American. --WebHamster 14:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an American. Insinuations of the above sort have no place here.

It's shorter, but it's still trivial. If the spelling of sulfur is truly a cause of prejudice in Britain, I'd be surprised. Marskell (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you. And the sulfur reference is merely an example as is the railway station. If there's any doubt as to the resentment I suggest you look at how may edit wars have come about due to the use of US English vs British English. You may not be American but I'll bet you aren't British either if you aren't aware of the level of resentment. Incidentally Equazcion, there's no requirement to discuss each and every single edit so don't be so bloody quick to revert next time. I was rushing as I'm due to go out I had every intention of sourcing it, but due to you stiucking your nose in I'm now late and for no good reason. well done. --WebHamster 14:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that you used the plural and only two of us were talking, I have no idea who else you might have been referring to. Marskell (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bold, revert, talk. No, not every edit needs to be discussed, but once a revert took place and you were told there was a discussion was going on pertaining to that edit, you should participate in it rather than just continuing to edit. I reverted you because I don't feel what you're putting into the article should be there. Think you'd do the same. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:06, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

And PS -- I didn't mean to make you late. That was just a bonus. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:09, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde said about America words to the effect of "Everything is the same as in England apart from the language". By the way I still disagree with Saber getting rid of all the quotes in this article (plus lots of other relevent material) - contrary to wikipedia policy. Saber, possibly prompted by the sock-puppeteer Bsharvy's spurious complaints, totally misrepresented the very good quality of this article and got rid of lots of valuable material. Colin4C (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Randomly throwing a quote without any context whatsoever right under a h2 header is not good encyclopedic style. Building sections that consist of more quoted material than own text is not good encyclopedic style. I'm not arguing against the material but the way in which you present it. Per WP:MOS the article was in a crappy state. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 17:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't here for that stuff. Maybe someone could paste the section you're talking about in here so others can offer input? Equazcion •✗/C • 20:23, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

[2] --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 08:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the quote has merit, but we do not need to put the quote on the article page, but we can summarize what the quote says and wikilink to the quoted article. Igor Berger (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Due weight

While not participating in the previous reverts, I'd just like to make clear I'm reverting the extended Chomsky quotes because of WP:UNDUE. The first paragraphs are cautious and attempt to be balanced, and then suddenly we have two massive Chomsky quotes, which means, basically, that the article comes down in one camp after trying to avoid doing so.

Please note I am not an American Fundamentalist... This is basic attention to due weight. I would not be averse, for instance, to moving a single Chomsky quote into the lead, to balance out the Hollander quote already there. Marskell (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Is Neutrality in Dispute?

There is disagreement over whether reasonable questions have been raised regarding the neutrality of this article. As a result, some editors are deleting every effort to add a warning tag that says "Its neutrality is disputed." In addition to this Talk page, there was an AfD discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Americanism

Note: the question is not whether you think the article is neutral, but whether reasonable questions have been raised about its neutrality.

Yes, neutrality is in dispute. Editors have disputed the neutrality of this article throughout its history. The basic objection is that nothing objective can be said about this topic besides a dictionary definition. I dispute the neutrality in AfD, many places in these Talk pages, and here [3]. --Bsharvy (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a question of 'objectivity' but of balance. Only God has an objective view of reality. We are only human wikipedia editors. All topics in the universe are disputed. To be sure, some people are very sure of themselves but that is not 'objectivity'. If we followed your reasoning neutrality tags would have to be fixed to every article in the wikipedia which would be absurd. Your attempt to have this article deleted failed. Get over it. For clarification here is the wikipedia policy on NPOV. See especially the bit I have italicised:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, writing clearly about each side; but they are not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."

You are of course free to dispute wikipedia policy but I suggest that this Talk page is not the best place to do so.

Colin4C (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OBVIOUSLY, people are disputing if it's neutral. Rachel63 (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire you and Bsharvy (who very oddly seem to think and write in the same way...) seem to be disputing the wikipedia notion of what neutrality is. According to the wikipedia neutrality is not some unknowable 'objectivity' but a balance of views pro and contra. This article starts with a sourced definition and then gives a variety of views exactly in line with wikipedia prescripts. If it was one sided it would be POV, but it isn't. Colin4C (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I was going to say the same about you and Webhamster. (Go make a sockpuppet report if you're serious. If you're not serious, these accusations are disruptive.) I dispute the neutrality of the article. Period. This article calls virtually everything under the sun anti-American. It slants the application of the term toward an accusation of prejudice. It--Wikipidedia--accuses people of anti-Americanism. In other words, it is full of accusations of prejudice not attributed to a significant source. It is extremely light on the reasons people give for being anti-American, e.g. being anti-superpower. -- Bsharvy (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as the discussion of anti-Americanism is sourced that is okay. Wikipedia is not about original research but reporting and explaining what other writers have said about the subject. The bibliography shows that there are scores of books and articles on the subject. Whether you agree with what they say is immaterial. This is a complex issue but you throwing a spanner in the works is not likely to solve it. Knowledge comes from a dialectic, not bad-tempered demands and accusations. Colin4C (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

An article can be sourced and biased. If the only views you represent are pro-American, it doesn't matter whether the views are sourced: the article is biased. --Bsharvy (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, from reading it and the talk pages it definitely seems to be rather biased and clearly many other people think so. I believe a not-NPOV tag would be resonable. --Tombomp (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Good article. Plenty of reliable sources. --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We are having trouble with disruptive editor(s) though at the moment which is causing us grief. Colin4C (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We certainly are having trouble with disruptive editors. Wh has been blocked in the last week? Igor Berger and WebHamster . Would you support a topic-ban on these proven disruptors? --Bsharvy (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That was uncalled for Bsharvy. Someone should now request arbitration before this gets even more out of hand. IronCrow (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Can someone please explain what the issues are that caused the locking of the article? (I can research that myself but I'm sure someone can explain that in 30 seconds.)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't think anyone's edit-warred on this recently. Some tags have been coming and going, and there have certianly been controversial edits, but they've been rather well-spaced. I see no real revert warring here. WebHamster was blocked for some pretty creative interpretation of 3RR. Igor was blocked for something unrelated, and has only made a single edit to this article that I can see. This topic is controversial, sure, but the full-protect and other recent actions frankly baffle me. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:18, 10 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I will ask the admin, then. By the way, I hope we can resolve this without bothering for arbitration... is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The Arbitration process is governed by the Arbitration policy.
It is important to note that while the committee will sanction users or place subject areas under restrictions, it will not rule on the content of articles. Please do not request decisions from the committee on content, as these requests will not be accepted.
 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, trust me, there will be no arbitration for this. This is just another controversial topic, like many, many others we have on Wikipedia. ArbCom is for more pressing issues. They wouldn't even accept a case like this. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:59, 10 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the protection to semi-protection. If you guys feel there is no edit war going on, then I won't stand in your way in making constructive edits. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jaurback. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:17, 10 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Enough fighting. If someone is reverting and reverting to get their POV, and taking advantage of the 3RR, even if they do not break the rule, something is wrong. We should follow the consensus of all the editors envolved. Igor Berger (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is doing anything like that, Igor. That's why the page was unprotected. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:33, 10 Mar 2008 (UTC)

At least one statement in the article isn't supported by the the cited source at all (use of sulfur/sulphur in british teaching), having lots of sources isn't necessarily a sign of a good article. Some of the wording still seems weaselly as well, "The usual criticisms" for example.--Sully (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

Since multiple editors are edit warring, I have protected the page. Please consider resolving disputes by seeking consensus here instead. --slakr^\ talk / 09:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Jesus... Equazcion •✗/C • 09:40, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

No, Anti-Americanism. Though, Jesus does gets its own share of edit wars. :P --slakr^\ talk / 09:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We all trying to get consensus, but User:Bsharvy and possible sock User:Rachel63 is trying to push his POV against all editors' consensus. Igor Berger (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know we were protecting pages due to these little spats. Frequent ongoing long-term-type edit warring I can see, but this... again... it's just not encouraging. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:46, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not the reinsertion of the unencyclopidic tag, but slow deletion of the whole article by Bsharvy. Igor Berger (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

here Igor Berger (talk)

Well, keep me updated on the sock/checkuser/whatever. It was either this or start blocking people, sock or not, for 3RR. I figure this is a much better alternative. --slakr^\ talk / 10:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no problem, we need to straighten this out, so the editors can work on the article. Igor Berger (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the problem here seems to be just two editors who both violated 3RR, I don't see how that warranted full protection of the article. People who violate 3RR should be blocked for 3RR violation. The article on which they made the violation shouldn't be protected due to that. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:23, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I agree let the other editors keep working on the article. Igor Berger (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, after taking a look at their contributions, it looks like they're probably socks. Check out Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Bsharvy. I'll unprotect the article, assuming that nobody else is going to edit war. --slakr^\ talk / 11:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Slakr. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:31, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

And PS, good work Theo on spotting this. I'm a suspicious guy but apparently not suspicious enough to have checked for other editing similarities between these two users. Good job. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:35, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Just be sure to tell your friends about SlakrSleuth™ patented technology— now with Sock-B-Gone™ formula :P Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 11:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Will do :) Equazcion •✗/C • 11:52, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to add my thanks. Thank you. IronCrow (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Revenge of Bsharvy

Bsharvy has stated on his talk page User talk:Bsharvy that he is going to create a new ID plus sockpuppet!: "I will just create another account. Maybe I will make a sockpuppet too: what is there to lose?" Watch out for this! Colin4C (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is this bsharvy? He sounds like a very intelligent man. --Bshanvy (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

He is the same person as you. Don't you recognise yourself? Colin4C (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I found it in good humour =D Iciac (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm the same person as myself? I disagree. I strongly believe that I'm not me. You're just making more unsourced POV claims as usual. --Bshanvy (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Must be Bsharvy. Got the same uncanny sense of humor. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:32, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)

DUCK thinks he is a BEAR. Igor Berger (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Editing User:Squatt is also a sockpuppet of Bsharvy. Squatt is a newly created user and has beamed straight to this article, at the same time as 'Bshanvy', deleting stuff and adding a tag and seeming to be quite knowledgeable about wikipedia editing - despite first registering about a day ago. As Bsarvy threatened to come back as a new user plus sockpuppet I think we should investigate this possibility. Colin4C (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Already under way: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bshanvy. Feel free to add evidence and comments. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:07, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'll be more than happy to contact the school at which Bsharvy teaches to help rectify the situation. I'm sure that they won't be too pleased when they hear that one of their faculty is representing their institution in such a way as to cause trouble on wikipedia. --slakr^\ talk / 13:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to check the history of User talk:Rachel63. I tactfully edited Bshanvy's comments to me, in order to remove some colorful personal attacks. I'm sure the school would be interested to hear that he said things like "What are you, a nerd?" [4] and "Damn you're dumb" [5]. What a wonderful example s/he is to his/her students. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:11, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Also, one of my colleagues suggested that I clarify what I originally said, as I totally should have added wikilinks, and I could easily see how it could have been misconstrued as a threat or something totally not like me. :P In cases of repeat abuse over a certain connection, we will initiate long term abuse reports if someone is abusing their uplink in order to prevent having to rangeblock the entire school which would prevent even the students of the school from being able to edit. --slakr^\ talk / 17:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure declawed that one didntya... Equazcion •✗/C • 18:14, 19 Mar 2008 (UTC)

State terrorism and the United States

I would like to include State terrorism and the United States in the see also section. This is what domestic anti-Americanism is. Igor Berger (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Timothy McVeigh Oklahoma City bombing, Jim Crow laws as well as any United States terrorism against its own people is anti-Americanism. Igor Berger (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

But your examples aren't state terrorism. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 11:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are right. It is about United States supporting terrorism against other countries. Yes you are right it does not belong in the article. Thank you for pointing it out to me. Igor Berger (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can add this? Plot against FDR Igor Berger (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and re-added it, didn't know it was already discussed though I'd like to add that it can be percieved as such. The Klu Klux Klan sees it's self as pure American, but most would regard it as an anti-American group. Feel free to revert it again if you find it to be something else, I'm more 50/50 on it.IronCrow (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But the KKK don't conduct state terrorism. I don't know how you draw that line. --SABER^EXCALIBUR! 16:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I was using a different definition. That's what I get for shifting through 5 articles at a time, I'll revert my edit. Though I do think Domestic Terrorism does have somewhat to do with how anti-Americanism is formed. "Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)" from the article. IronCrow (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We should have a section on domestic anti-Americanism. I think that is why I added that link about state terrorism in the first place, because it talked about domestic terrorism in the article, as well. Igor Berger (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Squatt

Don't sweat his edits. Checkuser confirms he's a sock of Bsharvy, so he'll be blocked soon (case). Equazcion •✗/C • 23:47, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Blocked now. Go about your business. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:05, 23 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for AntiAmericanism

Some ideological disagreements are based on true issues of difference between countries or systems, as perhaps was the case between the Communist and Capitalist blocs before the fall of Communism, where often Communists and Capitalists would be against the stated government policy of each other's system. However in many cases, reasons offered for being anti-American are considered spurious by most Americans: for example many people today are anti-American because they believe the US is engaged in a crusade against Islam, whereas this is neither the stated policy of the US nor is it considered by most Americans to be so, or to be a desireable policy. It may even be that some of the anti-American people truly believe that an anti-Islamic crusdae is in fact stated US policy. As another example, many people are anti-American because they believe it is American policy to subjugate Iraq in order to steal its oil whereas most Americans do not believe this is the goal of the Iraq war. To some degree - perhaps to an unusual degree - anti-Americanism is therefore due to what people are told about US policies and actions, and their resulting perceptions and beliefs about US policies and actions, rather than due to the relevant policies and actions as seen by most Americans. Avirab (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Avirab Reference: Avi Rabinowitz http://www.pages.nyu.edu/~air1/politics.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avirab (talk • contribs) 01:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Something like a crusade against Islam can be the effect of US policy, regardless of whether it is an offically stated policy. This whole article is pretty vague about what it means by anti-American. I also wonder what kind of bias is built into the English-language Wikipedia. What percentage of native English-speakers are American? If French people were equally represented here, would it really be a consensus to call French concerns as "anti-American?" Life.temp (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

We are not here to catalog all instances of anti-Americanisms but to show what anti-Americanism is. Wikipedia does follow WP:NPOV, and we try to present all information in an unbiased fashion, being if it is edited by American editor, or an editor from some other country. Igor Berger (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You may want to refer to this article War against Islam, which is pertinent to the topic that you have mentioned. Igor Berger (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That article begins "War against Islam (also War on Islam, or Attack on Islam) is a critical term used to describe a perceived campaign by non-Muslims and alleged false Muslims to harm..." Would you support changing this article to begin "Anti-Americanism or anti-American sentiment is perceived opposition or hostility to the people, culture or alleged policies of the United States..." I don't think this article does "show what anti-Americanism is". It shows what some editors interpret as anti-Americanism, and there is cultural bias in that. If French-speaking people were equally represented here, there would be no consensus about how this article has interpreted French thought. Life.temp (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What does "not necessarily" refer to, in the undo of my edit? Life.temp (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

-- http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=77 Dreadwins (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice link, will add it to peer-reviewed. It is just a DUCK..:)

External Links peer-reviewed

In looking at the articles described as "peer-reviewed" I noticed that few of them are peer-reviewed, and also that this article has a ton of external links, and there is a warnng that says Wikipedia shold not act as a repository of links. So, I removed the links that weren't as described. It looks like a lot more can be removed. Life.temp (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I thinked you removed too much. I just inserted a link that is peer-reviewed, but you removed it. Igor Berger (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

How can you tell the commentary (not really an article) you inserted was peer-reviewed? I see no evidence that anything in that section is peer-reviewed. The articles from Brown look most likely, but there is nothing at the host site that says they are peer-reviewed, and it is a student journal rather than a strictly professional journal. Life.temp (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Pew Research Center is a professional organization not some student publication. But this is not about the link that I inserted, but about you removing like 20 other links, which edit I reverted. If you really intent to remove the links first get consensus with other editors Igor Berger (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say Pew Research Center is "some student publication." I didn't remove 20 other links. I removed citations that were wrongly described as "peer-reviewed" in a section that is flagged for having too many external links anyway. The link you inserted is not to a peer-reviewed article at all. The Pew Research Center isn't a journal; its a research center that publishes the result of its own research. Life.temp (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay so maybe we need to tidy up and reorganize a bit, to have the links titled under a proper category. Deleting all the links is not the right way of doing it. If a link has no relevency to the article or POV pushing then I have nothing against deleting it, but if a link is organized in the wrong way, maybe we should add another sub section and put it there. Like the link from the Pew Research Center is! A link from such an organization, which is higly prestige, is useful to the aticle in supporting the description of anti-Americansim. Maybe we can name the section as Further reading. Igor Berger (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You also deleted an edit to the opening sentence, based on what we discussed. It had nothing to do with the articles. Life.temp (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what else I deleted, but when you went slashing chunks out, I reverted you. Take one issue at a time and get a consensus for it. Igor Berger (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think you should know what you are deleting?? Consensus is not required for factual misrepresentations of published work. Life.temp (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor, how exactly should I work with you? The only person insisting that these articles are peer-reviewed is you, and you have provided no documentation of that. Regardless, I doubt Wikipedia policy is that factually wrong, easily refuted information is acceptable even with consensus. Provide some reason to believe any of those articles are peer-reviewed, please. Also, why don't you restore the other inofrmation you deleted and then said "I do not know what else I deleted" as if knowing what you are doing doesn't matter. Life.temp (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Life.temp, it is not about what I want or do not want. If you want to make a change to the article raise the question on this talk page, one item at a time, in its own subsection. Once you have raised the question or a suggestion, allow time for other editors to comment. Once a few editors have commented, we will see what the consesus has become and will implement the changes or will stay status quo, depending on the consensus. Igor Berger (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Can some editors comment as to if we should remove the wording peer-reviewed from the external links subsection. I have looked at the links under the specific subsection and I find NYU, Princeton and other publications like The Pew Research Center to be peer-reviews. User:Life.temp seems to think non of the articles are peer-reviewed. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor, it's not a matter of personal opinion. You don't express that you "find [them] to be peer-reviewed." You document it, or not. In this case, not, because you can't. Nothing says any of those articles are peer-reviewed (except you). Get some documentation that they are peer-reviewed, and until then, stop insisting that article make unsupported factual claims. Life.temp (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Asia section needs something on China, possibly North Korea

China has issues with America as an imperialist trying to "contain" China. Many Chinese are convinced the 1999 bombing of a Chinese embassy in former Yugoslavia was intentional. They are also angry at America's support of Taiwan, Tibet, and criticism of China for human rights violations.

As for North Korea, well, anti-Americanism is their entire raison d'etre... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.91.26.13 (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Tibet issue can be added, but one has to be very careful to find NPOV sources that are not POV Dalai Lama or Chinese goverment. Also North Korea is a good idea, but then again finding unbiased sources will be difficult. Igor Berger (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As criticism

"You're being an anti-abortionist/pro-lifer" -- That term can be used that way too, but that doesn't mean we define "pro-life" as "a critical term used to describe" something "alleged". People often even describe themselves as anti-American. There's nothing alleged or critical about the term itself. It depends on how it's used. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:51, 4 Apr 2008 (UTC)

The article says: "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." This article is more like a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia. It is about a word instead of a thing. Anti-American prejudice is different from criticism of the US, so those things should have separate articles. Only if the article is about the term (i.e. this is a dictionary) does it make sense to have one article about all the different things the term denotes.

Usually, the term is used to allege prejudice, as this article indicates. So, usually, it is a political interpretation of some situation. The French simply aren't going to agree that their policies and concerns are fairly described as "anti-Americanism", so this article is culturally biased. Life.temp (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"is often used as a pejorative" -- yes, often used. A term's often use does not change its definition. You might be able to add that it's "often used in the context of criticism", but to say that it's "a critical term", as you've added, is a far cry from that.

Also I don't even think "often used as a pejorative" belongs in the article. The ref for that is an opinion piece [6] - "Anti-Americanism has become a superstition. Fear, loathing, fury and resentment have combined to produce something that resembles nothing so much as a new form of virulent anti-Semitism." That's the statement that this supposed "fact" comes from. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:45, 5 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Oh and this: "The term itself does not imply a critical attitude based on rational objections but rather a prejudiced system of thought"? Where the hell did this come from? These statements couldn't be any less factual. First of all, there are plenty of people who do consider themselves anti-American based on rational reasoning, and second, anti-Americanism doesn't need to be an identifier. Anti-Americanism is a feeling, not necessarily to be used to say "I am an anti-American" -- sure, that's not a statement often heard, but the article is about a sentiment -- anti-Americanism -- not the human label, "anti-American". This all needs to go, and I'm removing it. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:50, 5 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what this article is supposed to be about. It is not about a term or word: that is for dictionaries. It is about a thing, and everybody but you seems to agree that thing is a kind of prejudice. Life.temp (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not just about Equazcion, it is about you and your POV. You need to follow the consensus of the editors of this article. Igor Berger (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly explain what you are talking about? What consensus about what? What is my POV? Nobody but Equazcion has suggested deleting that part of the article, so I have no idea what consensus you are talking about. Life.temp (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The part that you tried to insert here that Equazcion deleted, I agree with his edit. I deleted it also, when I reverted your peer-reviewed mass link deletion. You never got a consensus for this edit, but you tried to bring it into the article anyway. Igor Berger (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If you scroll down, you will see that the main thing he is deleting is the the majority of a paragraph that describes the usage in more detail. Life.temp (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I still fully support his edit. The word ati-American is not prejudice. It is like anti-fascism, anti-zionist, or any other anti ideology. We been through this discussion a number of times already and the consensus is against calling it a prejudice definition. This consensus has been establshed by like 10 editors. They do not need to come to this page every time someone raises this objection. Please, let's move on. Igor Berger (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I can work with you. Please show where "We been through this discussion a number of times already and the consensus is against calling it a prejudice definition. This consensus has been establshed by like 10 editors." If it was the consensus of "like 10 editors" then why did the article say the opposite until I pointed it out? In fact the article still says the oppisite, calling the topic "a complication." I think you are lying. I have no idea what this means: "The word ati-American is not prejudice. It is like anti-fascism, anti-zionist, or any other anti ideology." Many "anti ideologies" descibe prejudice, e.g. anti-Semtism. In any case, you are doubly not making sense, because now you are advocating bold edits without consensus, unless you suddenly declare your new vote to have decided a consensus. Equazcion is making--and reverting to--an edit to the article without consensus. Life.temp (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the last archive, I see one brief discussion involving two editors, one of whom said "I also believe that this new attempted direction of using "prejudice" is quite unnecessary and is bordering on a strawman argument. Anything with anti as a prefix in the title is quite obviously demonstrating a prejudice to whatever it is preceding." (WebHamster 13:18, 6 March 2008) So please explain where this consensus of 10 editors was established. Life.temp (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at a version of the article from December 2006. The deleted text is there. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Americanism&diff=93863048&oldid=93837093 This text has been in the article for at least a year, maybe longer, and as far as I can tell nobody has ever disputed it. Why are you suddenly declaring a consensus to delete it with virtually no discussion? Life.temp (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

break

Life.temp, I don't need consensus. Not every edit needs a demonstration of consensus. The paragraph in question is poorly sourced. The information it contains is opinion, sourced via an opinion piece. No consensus needs to be demonstrated in order to remove unsourced content. Your only defense thus far has been to say that I have no consensus -- You've yet to actually defend the content or discuss the issue at all. If in 24 hours you still won't discuss this, I'm removing the paragraph again. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:15, 5 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Given that calling something anti-American is an interpretation or opinion, your comment is true of virtually the entire article: "The information it contains is opinion, sourced via an opinion piece." You do need consensus--that the information is wrong, that the source is inappropriate, etc. I agree with you (not Igor) that you can edit without discussion first, but when you delete a long-standing portion of the article (over a year) and are reverted, you shouldn't proclaim consensus doesn't matter. Giving 24-hour ultimatums is rude. Life.temp (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Calling something anti-American might be an opinion, but anti-American itself, as a term, is not. You keep interpreting anti-American in only one of its uses: to call something or someone anti-America; but that's not its only use. The entire article is most certainly not opinion, or else it wouldn't be an article. As you can see, it was recently nominated for deletion, but was kept. It would not have been, had the article not been factual. It's sourced via reliable sources. The source used for the paragraph in question is not reliable. It is an opinion piece. The opinion expressed in the source is not a valid way to back up a statement in an article. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:19, 6 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Please explain how the word "anti-American" has a use other than calling things anti-American. Please explain how any word has a use other than naming things. I don't see where the article was nominated for deletion, and I don't see what that has to do with anything. Saying an article should be deleted has nothing to do with saying it has POV problems. Most of the sources in this article are opinion pieces, just like the one you dislike. All of the Paul Hollander sourtces, for example, are his opinions. You agreed that calling something anti-American is an opinion: Do you agree this article frequently calls, or suggests, that things are anti-American? Life.temp (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Americanism. I haven't looked at the other sources and I don't know if the article has other POV issues. But this is a POV paragraph and needs to go. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:43, 6 Apr 2008 (UTC)

From that discussion, all by different editors....

"Wikipedia has articles for other types of racism such as Anti-Japanese sentiment and Islamophobia, so it should definately have one for Anti-Americanism."

"We have an article on anti-Semitism; should we delete that because people don't agree on what that means?"

"Anti-Americanism is clearly a form of bigory (in my opinion, mainly because hating a group is bigotry)."

The article has prejudice as its primary focus in the minds of most editors, and as far as I can tell, it has been that way a long time. For good reason. The topic of objecting to any US policy would be far too general. Is everybody who objects to the 2nd Ammendment anti-American? According to this article, yes. The act of objecting to any US policy is just far too broad to be a succinct article. Life.temp (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

K. And? Do you have a reliable source that says the term's primary use is as an accusation of prejudice? If so, feel free to add it. If not, the claim stays out of the article. I'm not going to engage you in a debate on the term's use. Let's keep it simple: unsourced info gets removed,sourced info stays. And stop edit warring. You and Igor need to stop reverting each other. The next time it happens I'm going to request a block for both of you. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:16, 7 Apr 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't about the term. That would be a dictionary. This is an encyclopedia. It is about a topic, not a word. The primary topic of this article is, and has been for a long time, anti-American prejudice. You're not addressing the distinction between a dictionary and an encylopedia. The purpose of this article is not to describe all meanings of a term which has many meanings. It is to explain one thing, appropriate for an encyclopeia, that the term refers to. That one thing, in the case of this article, has primarily been anti-American prejudice, (with some discussion of propaganda).

You need to engage in a discussion. You need to work towards consensus. That means not threatening to have people blocked, and using a civil tone. Life.temp (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with threatening a block for edit warring. I would expect the same from someone else if I were edit warring. You need to stop doing it. As for the rest, I'm again not debating this. Statements simply need to be properly sourced using reliable sources. If they are, I won't remove them. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:08, 7 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Igor, your edit comment keeps referring to consensus. Can you explain why you think there is a consensus on this matter, which is clearly not a matter of agreement here? Life.temp (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon furher review, you don't seem to be reading the article carefully. The source you are editing doesn't claim to be documenting the primary usage of the term. It is this: "Advocates of the significance of the term argue, for instance, that Anti-Americanism represents a coherent and dangerous ideological current, comparable to anti-Semitism.[10]" In other words, it is just a documentation of what one side of a debate has argued. You've given no reasons for deleting such a thing at all. Life.temp (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

White Mans Burden

The History section makes the claim that Rudyard Kipling's "White Man's Burden" was written in satire and was a written criticism of American Imperialism in the Philipines. This is incorrect. In my knowlege, "White Man's Burden" was not a satire, and the article on it mentions nothing of anti-American reasoning. I have heard of another piece, written in satire, that fits the bill, but the name escapes me. Also, this satire was written by an American (at least as I remember) not as anti-American but as anti-imperialist, and was simply reacting as the U.S. began to follow the trend that had been started in Europe.

It is my suggestion that the mention of the White man's burden be removed, as both it and its satire are not anti-American and therefore will not enhance this article.71.63.153.119 (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article The White Man's Burden and pay attention to the words "satirical view". Imperialism by America is a form of anti-Americanism harbored towards America by Philipines, when America invaded and colonized the country. Igor Berger (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of that section is unsourced or incorrectly sourced POV. Life.temp (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that the article probably only mentioned the poem as a vehicle for including that preexisting supporting cite of a SF Chronicle article which quotes President Bush as saying "America is proud of its part in the great story of the Filipino people," and follows that up with: "In fact, that great story was a tale of American betrayal and bloodshed." The Chronicle article goes on for quite a while in that vein, concluding with:

San Francisco academic Dawn Mabalon, who teaches Asian American history at Stanford University and San Francisco State University, said the attempts to draw parallels between Iraq and the Philippines are "just chilling." "It just goes to show that government leaders would conveniently distort history to make it seem as though the U.S. is the savior rather a colonizer -- an imperial power in its own right," she said. "The U.S. government knows what they did in the Philippines -- and it's counting on the historical amnesia of Filipinos as well as the historical amnesia of Americans to ignore what really happened in the Philippines."

I agree with the comments about the mention of White man's burden and the suggestion that it should be removed. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourced Philippine-American War as anti-Americanism. Igor Berger (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourced Kipling's white man's burden. Igor Berger (talk) 09:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources you gave have little to do with the topic of this article.

The Atlantic Review link is a list of search results for "anti-Americanism" at that Web zine. There is no series of articles. The term is just a tag used at that political Web zine. Listing search results for a word is a good example of "indiscriminate list of links" -- something Wikipedia is not. Life.temp (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point about Atlantic Review. It is not a web enzine, but it makes references to external articles and blogs about it. I will remove the link. Igor Berger (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The entire lead within the history section is POV. The stuff about... "The French Revolution created a new type of anti-American political thought, hostile to the political institutions of the United States...The German poet Nikolaus Lenau encapsulated the Romantic view...With the rise of American industry in the late nineteenth century, intellectual anti-American discourse entered a new form. Mass production, the Taylor system, and the speed of American life and work became a major threat to some intellectuals' view of European life and tradition." ...is POV. It is an essay, and has no place in this article. The stuff about the Rudyard Kipling poem should also go, for the reasons described above. I am increasingly wondering which of the many things "anti-Americanism" refers to this article is about. Life.temp (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I reread the history, and everything written there makes a lot of sense, and it is NPOV, notable and verifiable. Actually that section came for encyclopidia Britanica as many social, political, economic, and historical articles have when Wikipedia first started. The history that is written there is relevent to the definition of the article's topic. It shows how the term and the ideology was born. (Read liberalism to see what I am talking about.) What events motivated it. To call Friedrich Nietzsche and other prominant peoples' words that are written in the history introduction as irrelvant weasel words( when you tried to delete the secttion), is not only desrespectable to these people, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia users, but it is very ignorant on your part as an editor. It is the same as calling them "stupid" Which I consider a personal attack, not on an editor, although editors did add this section in, but on Wikipedia as a whole. Please read WP:NPA. Igor Berger (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Revamp this article

I think this article needs to be significantly cut down. The use as a pejorative needs to be almost completely removed, or at least confined to its own section. The rest of the article should be about the self-designation only. Calling things or people anti-American when they don't call themselves that is really just unsourced POV. Any opinion pieces and information derived from them need to be removed. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:15, 9 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but at the same time, each piece of information to be removed should be brought for discussion to the talk page to get the consensus of the editors envolved. We cannot chop off large chunks of the article, just because one person believes rightly or wrongly that the whole part is poorly sourced or not relevent to this article. That is ownership! Let's examine one part at a time and edit by consensus. Igor Berger (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not happening. Not every change needs a demonstration of consensus. We'll do the chopping where necessary, and if anyone has a problem with it they can bring it up here. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:39, 9 Apr 2008 (UTC)

It is the burden on the editor to show the other editors envolved in the article that a consensus exists for an edit. Yes one can be WP:BOLD and do the edit but if the edit is reverted by an established editor, there should not be edit warring to enforce one's POV. Bring the desired edit to the talk page and get other established article's editors to agree with your edit. Igor Berger (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Removals and rationale

Anti-Americanism means being against America. Criticizing one policy, practice, or person of the US is not being anti-America. "We don't like America" -- that's anti-Americanism. "We don't like imperialism" -- that's not necessarily anti-Americanism. If I tell my friend Bob to stop punching people who disagree with him, it doesn't mean I'm anti-Bob. It means I disapprove of one of his actions. If I say "I don't like Bob", then I'm anti-Bob. Calling anything else anti-Americanism is an unfounded accusation.

I'm outlining the parts (of the history section, for now) that I've removed, along with a summary of my reasoning.

• French revolution was the beginning -- completely unsourced
• Kipling, White Man's Burden, Crosby -- criticism of globalization/imperialism, NOT necessarily America. Just because Crosby didn't want America to conquer new lands doesn't mean he was against America as a whole.
• Rise of industry as a catalyst -- completely unsourced
• Nietzsche and other philosophers' criticisms of work speed/industry in US -- criticizing a trait is not anti-Americanism, as explained above. Some criticisms in this paragraph even spanned multiple countries, yet they weren't considered "anti"-them too.
• Anti-globalization - "neoliberal globalization has magnified the visibility of trade conflicts and decreased job security[22], and is often attributed to either U.S. or Anglo-American influence" -- This is sourced with an opinion by Chomski. Saying that something is "often attributed to" something else and sourcing that statement with an opinion by one person is both an example of weasel words and synthesis.
• Fall of soviet union as catalyst -- Sourced with opinion pieces that classify certain places/people of being anti-American rather than pointing out people who declare themselves to be anti-American. The sources are opinions anyway, so there should be no question there.

Equazcion •✗/C • 20:19, 9 Apr 2008 (UTC)

If the only acceptable examples are self-identifiers, then all the national examples need to go. I don't see any examples in this article of using it as a self-identifier. I think I agree with you that that is a good test, however. Life.temp (talk) 22:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the national examples yet, that's the only reason I didn't perform any removals there. Much of it probably does need to go, but I'd recommend that if you do that, post your rationale case-by-case as I've done, so that it's not seen as a blind across-the-board removal. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:10, 9 Apr 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I don't know what I think about this very problematic article. The problem with restricting it to self-identification is that I've never heard anyone describe their worldview as anti-Americanism. I've heard people declare themselves to be anti-American, but never heard them apply the -ism form to themselves. The -ism form is almost always a pejorative. Either way, the national examples have to go. Either it is a pejorative, in which case this article is attacking those cultures, or it is a self-identifier in which case the examples aren't supported. Life.temp (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what to do here either. An examination of actual anti-Americanism, as in the middle-east kind where people actually say they hate America, is probably all that belongs here. There is something else this article has absorbed, though, and that is the examination of views that are classified as anti-American in a philosophical context. That might be something worth having an article on, but separately, and I have no idea what to name it. If we create something like that, much of the deleted material from here could probably be revived there, with some rewording. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:02, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree to this massive deletion. The rational for it is flowed. By removing most of the references to the anti-Americanism you are taking away the topic's supportive material making the topic poorly stractured, lacking fondation of the theme. If one cannot support the article's architactual integrati there is no anti-Americanism concept. In present stage, I will be nominating the article for AFD, because the article has no relevency in meaning. Igor Berger (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read the discussion above, the problem with most of this article is (was) that it classifies things as being anti-American when that's really just an opinion. Most of it was sourced with opinion pieces. Calling someone anti-American, and someone actually saying they are anti-American, are two different things. The opinions that people are anti-American, without them actually saying they're against America, don't belong in the article because they are not factual conclusions. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:51, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)

The article now is just a collection of one line statements. It has no core, and it is simply has become just a dictionary definition. It is not encyclopidic and should be deleted. Unless you can provide examples to support the topic and make it whole, there is nothing to talk about. Step back, read it, and you will understand. Igor Berger (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The examples were all unsourced. What's left is the encyclopedic stuff. Everything else was POV. It might seem boring to you now, but I suppose that's how encyclopedias can be sometimes. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:58, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I live in Japan and Japanese are anti-American. Why because Japan is under the shoeheel of American goverment, the constitution is imposed by America on Japan. American soldgiers comite crimes and rape angainst Japanese people. Not many but some. I have trouble getting a taxi at night because I am a white Jewish boy, and they think I am American. Try stopping 5 cabs and none of them will stop. Is this not anti-American? Is this not a fact? Or, you think it is just my opinion! Igor Berger (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that pretty much is just your opinion, for our purposes. You're trying to tell me something should be included in a Wikipedia article because you can't get a cab? Come on. Haven't you learned anything about this place yet? Facts need to be sourced. Please stop being ridiculous. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:07, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I still do not agree with your edits. If something was not properly sourced, we should have sourced it not delted it. If something was written in an opinionated matter we should have rewritten it. We have deleted facts, not opinions. The earth is round and revolves around the sun, that is a fact. If you want to believe that the earth is flat, join the flat earth society. Yes, Israel is protected..:) Igor Berger (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. Statements of opinion can't necessarily be rewritten so that they're factual. If you can provide an example of something I deleted that was factual, please do so. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:16, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I have not looked at all your edits yet, but the parrt about France starting the ideology that you deleted is also sourced at another part of the article. So I just found an additional source. Did you read the article before you started chopping? Or you just unsourced, goodbye. Why don't you try to source something that you deleted? Why don't you see if the opinion has a relevency to a fact and you can rewrite in a factual matter? Deleting is easy, same as destroying, but building is another story! So what was very hurry with this mass deletion? Are we on fire, that we had to do everything in 10 minutes? Igor Berger (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I read everything I deleted, Igor. I mostly deleted things that were POV. I'm not going to respond to your reprimands anymore though or continue this same ridiculous argument with you. When you care to stop repeating yourself and instead get constructive, showing specific examples of things you think should not have been removed, let me know. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:34, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)

You are free to go! See were it goes from here. Oh, when you criticizing me I will level some at you as well. This is constructive editing. Or are you beyond reproach? Igor Berger (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection requested

To avoid edit warring and being that it is hard to get a consensus with very few editors envolved, I requested a Temporary full-protection. Once other editors come around we can request the protection to be lifted. Igor Berger (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor, please withdraw your request for protection. You were the one who was edit warring. Life.temp and I are discussing further edits here before making them right now. If you don't want edit warring to occur then you should simply make sure you don't do it again, rather than requesting protection on the article. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:26, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Let's have an admin decide what should be done. Also I would like to start an WP:EA following WP:DR. I do not want the three of us going in circles as to what should stay and what should go. It is getting very tiresome. Igor Berger (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no circles, Igor. Your request for protection is ridiculous. If you don't edit war there will be no problem. Life.temp and I are discussing possible edits to this page and you, rather than contributing to the discussion, are instead requesting protection. That's not constructive. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:35, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Sorry there is no discussion here! And I was and not now edit warring. I did one edit to the article since we started this thing. That is since Life.temp joined this article. I sourced the French Revolution created anti-Americanism part. That is my only edit that has meaning. The rest were to follow the consesus of this talk page. You want to accuse me of editng warring, you know what to do! Igor Berger (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of discussion here, you're just not contributing to it. If you'd like to discuss something, about the article, feel free to voice any concern you have and I'll be glad to respond to it. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:40, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Igor, if it's hard to get consensus with very few editors involved, then why have you been insisting there is a consensus every time you revert one of my edits? I think you mean, the consensus isn't what you want it to be, so you're hoping some more editors will show up who agree with you. Life.temp (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Because about a month ago there were many editors here and we were working with consesus editing the article. I know it is a bit hard to do it now, because only a few editors are involved. So best is to slow down and do baby steps. This way everyone will come to agreement. Like I advised to you before, there are many articles on Wikipedia. Try to contribute to a few more than you are doing now. And we will bring this article to a good shape with time. Slow down! Igor Berger (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What Is this Article About?

Don't say "anti-Americanism." That word has many different meanings. Which meaning is the subject of this article? Life.temp (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I will tell you what it is not about. It is not about "I am anti-American" There is no such English. Proper English is, "I do not like Americans," "I do not like America," or even stronger, "I hate America!" Now, non of these are anti-Americanism. Now being that you brought the question up, can you answer what you think anti-Americanism is about? Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Anti-Americanism is a disagreement with some actions, politics, and behavior of American government and its people.(Google it) In extreme cases it can also become an oppositon to some actions, politics, and behavior of American government and its people.

Now you try. Igor Berger (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor, your definition makes every person and every society in the world anti-American. It makes George W. Bush anti-American (he disagrees with US policy on Death with Dignity laws, for example). Besides, I didn't ask what the word is about, I asked what this article is about. Words can have many meanings. We don't have one encyclopedia entry for "round" and then try to talk about the musical form and geometric shape in the same article, even though they are described with the same word. They would be discussed in one dictionary entry, but separate encyclopedia entries, because they are different things. Of the things meant by "anti-Americanism" the two that are appropriate for an encyclopedia are 1) the group(s) that self-declare as anti-American or 2) a kind of prejudice. In neither case can you or I or any editors be asserting or implying what is anti-American. That's POV. Life.temp (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I heard this from you before. But that is your POV. Igor Berger (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that the end of your effort to find consensus? Life.temp (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Time for WP:TEA

Look what ever edits have been done they been done, and let's not edit war. Were they right or wrong is not important, but we should try to show good faith - build good faith among each other. There have to be comprimises as we go forward. Also please slow down and be considerent of each other's feelings and requests.

The aticle has been protected from editing for one day, so we are not in a rush, actually a longer protection would not be bad. Okay, so the edits User:Equazcion did need to be checked and corrected if possible, if not, we just let each one of them stay status quo. Let's examine them and bring them one at a time to the talk page and see if we can, maybe rewrite them, properly source them, take an opinion and find fact for it. I am sure everyone knows how to Google for information. And yes, we do not want our own opinions. But facts of events documented by authoritative historians, professors, politicians, etc. So If there is something about anti-Americanism in Japan based on what American soldiers have done in Japanese society, we need to find an article describing the event that motivated anti-American sentimate and the writter of the article must clearly state, such event has made Japanese people resent Americans, American goverment, etc.

So we need to agree not to just delete but to build the article. I hope we can build a positive atmoshpere for editing and respect each other. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Who the hell gutted the whole thing!? Perfectly valid and sourced info has been removed. Marskell (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha. For some reason I thought it was already the eleventh and made edits. Sorry.

If prior to cutting a sourced section editors had, you know, read the sources they'd have found this on Japan: "Emotions have run high against the U.S. military -- mostly located on the Japanese island of Okinawa -- after the arrest of a U.S. Marine in the alleged rape of a 14-year-old Japanese girl as well as allegations that a U.S. Army employee raped a Filipino woman." If someone had looked at the section in edit mode they'd have found an article from IHT entitled "Road deaths ignite Korean anti-Americanism" buttressing the point wrt to Korea. If some had followed the blue link to the 1995 Okinawa rape they'd have found a clear example of "something about anti-Americanism in Japan based on what American soldiers have done in Japanese society," a fact easily confirmed in news sources.

So sure, let's be careful of sources. But let's not blithely remove material others have already sourced. Marskell (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If prior to criticizing edits editors had, you know, read edit summaries and talk page discussions, they'd know that sources have been read, and it wasn't a mere lack of sources that was the issue. Per the discussion above, the problem is that a mere complaint against what soldiers are doing in your area can not be described as anti-Americanism without being POV. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:31, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)

It does not have to be POV, just find a source that disagrees with American politics but it must say why Japanese people are against America. Igor Berger (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my comments were directed at Marskell. I've already been through this with Igor, so I'm waiting for Marskell to respond before I address anything else. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:49, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Equazcion. I am going to invite a few more editors from project politics so we can have a few more opinions and not find ourselves arguing each other. Igor Berger (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Another editor just did get involved. Stop talking and then maybe we wouldn't be arguing with each other. I directed a comment at Marskell, but surprise surprise you answered it, despite how unfruitful our discussions generally are. The point of getting others involved is to break the cycle, not continue it. Anyway: You'd have to first find a source that says Japanese people are against America in the first place. So far I don't see one. Sourcing a statement like "Jill is anti-Waldbaums" with an article that says she once got harassed by a Waldbaums employee pretty much makes for an unsourced statement. One can follow from the other, but doesn't necessarily. It's always okay to remove unsourced statements from articles. But you can always add them back if you find good sources. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:58, 10 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Find sources: anti-Americanism — news, books, scholar

Ty this! Also, you we should try to find sources for all main body content information deleted to restore balance to the article. Igor Berger (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

When sixty thousand Okinawans pour into the street to register "a mere complaint against what soldiers are doing" and demand the US leave the island[7] it would be absurd to deny anti-American sentiment. "The prominent "us versus them" tone of the protest was strengthened by years of resentment over the U.S. military presence on the tropical island." This is AA—a well-publicized, prominent example of it. This section can clearly be improved and sourced further.

Aside from this example, I am curious where consensus was reached to take a flamethrower to the article. Certainly, there was some cruft. Marskell (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"It would absurd to deny..." sounds like your POV talking, Marskell. We don't make these calls ourselves. We require reliable and unbiased sources to make these determinations for us. Did CNN call it anti-Americanism? If not, then you have no basis for saying anything is absurd. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:42, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

There was no concensus at all, an admin should change it back to the un-gutted version then bits can be removed Per Concensus. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Demonstrated consensus is not needed. It was a bold move. Admins don't need to be called in to reverse those. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:42, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Marksel, it is not constructive to call those who disagree with you "absurd." Here's what I find absurd: that you and others who share your views still do not comprehend the objection made here.

What's absurd? I--and most people--find it absurd to deny that Beethoven's 9th Symphony is beautiful. Still, I wouldn't advocate calling it beautiful in an encyclopedia article. Just because it is obvious to everyone--even a consensus--does not mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Calling something anti-Americanism is the same. They are both POV. Calling something anti-Americanism is worse, however, because it is generally negative and politically charged. Few people will get too upset if Wikipedia indulges in a little POV and calls Beethoven's works beautiful. Interpreting political events is a different matter.

Frankly, your example is offensive. The incident you are using as an example of anti- American sentiment began when three marines beat and gang-raped a 12-year-old girl. It ended when the admiral in charge--the official US representative--publicly summed it up as stupid because the van they rented cost more than a whore. Go tell the Japanese that wanting the US to leave after that was just anti-American sentiment.

Again (and again and again), there is built-in cultural bias in the encyclopedia of any language. Do you really think that if Japanese editors were equally represented here, there would be a consensus about this issue? That if French editors were equally represented, there would be a consensus to dismiss French concerns as anti-Americanism?

The other problem is that nobody agrees on what this article is about. Is it about prejudice? About groups that self-declare as anti-American? The dictionary definition we have now makes George W. Bush anti-American, since he opposes some US policies and aspects of the culture. Life.temp (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You are creating a false dilemma, Life temp: implying that because Okinawans may have been justified in taking to the streets over a brutal crime (they certainly were) it can't also be suggestive of anti-Americanism (it certainly was). We aren't here to judge motivations for actions but to reflect what reliable sources say about them. We have sources suggesting actions of soldiers have aggravated anti-Americanism.

The dictionary wording is not perfect, but when we've strayed too far from it it's created problems in the past. The lead and Use of the term still do a decent job of at least illuminating the debates that surround the definition. Marskell (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't remove sourced material. You are reverting sources that clearly and directly describe AA in the two countries. Marskell (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You actually removed the Europe section, which I'm iffy on. Could we at least have a moratorium on wholesale removal of sections? Marskell (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A sourced POV is still a POV. Wikipedia cannot say "Beethoven is better than Mozart [1]" where [1] is a link to somebody saying that. That is what you and Igor are calling "sourcing" claims of anti-Americanism. Life.temp (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The paragraphs I removed all had the same problem: they were assertions/suggestions that a decline in a favorable/unfavorable opinion poll is a case of anti-Americanism. That's total POV, and barely even supported by the extremely broad dictionary definition. Life.temp (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This article's name is anti-Americanism, so any sourced examples of anti-Americanism that are refered as anti-Americanism by the authoritative authors are not POV but unbiased documentation to the matter at hand. Also, you keep refering to this article as dictionary definition. Why is that? Igor Berger (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And I don't quite see how the music example is germane. Polling data is widely used to gauge sentiments on issues like this. Pew and Zogby are well-respected. Not that we should only have opinion polls, of course. Marskell (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

I believe that this article is in need of a lot of editing. This has nothing to do with view points, but with the organization/amount of information. I just did a word count at 9:00PM central on the article in two parts. The first part (intro to See Also) had a word count of around 1,355. The Text after that (references and notes) had a count of around 1,735 words.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I think that documenting sources should not take up more room than the actual article. Either the sources used are very weak and only worthy of a few words mention, the sources are repetitive, or they are not used to their potential.71.63.153.119 (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The main body sources were just deleted, that is why the article looks out of proportian. Tiny Man with a Giant Head..:) Igor Berger (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The number of words the sources take up compared to the main text is inconsequential. Firstly, the amount of text it takes to describe a source is entirely dependent on the person who originally inserted it, and can be changed. So counting the number of words doesn't tell us much. And, not to mention, even if # of words were a good measure of sources, I wish every article had this "problem". Too many sources? I've never heard anyone complain about that. It can only be a good thing. Sources don't need to be "used to their full potential". Sources need only back up the text, after the fact. Once adding a source, no one needs to worry that it's been "under-used". That's just silly. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:51, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

East Asia

Excelent edit by User: Marskell. May I also suggest to add the recent American incident in Japan to this section. An American services man murdered a Japanese taxi driver, possibly because his credit card was invalid and he did not have the money to pay $180 for the fare. The American Navy was very humble and helpful in investigation, and for the first time, if I am not mistaken, turned over a presumed criminal to Japanese court system for prosecution. This is really a good sign on behalf of American goverment towards Japanese people and its sovereignty. This needs to be sourced, but I do not think it would be a problem, because it has been in the news like crazy for the past few weeks. The last part is my opinion, so no need to include it, unless Chomsky states it..:) Igor Berger (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Public opinion polls

Should we be deleting public opinion polls as was done by User:Life.temp here? Igor Berger (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't be mass removing anything. This is weird. There's not even a pretence of trying to improve the sections. Marskell (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor, I didn't say we should delete all opinion polls. I deleted information about polls that misrepresented the polls and/or interpreted the poll results as anti-Americanism. The Pew survey didn't say anything about stereotypes (what I deleted did), nor did it document opposition or hostility to American culture/policy. It did not even focus on the USA, but on Western countries generally. It is not opposition or hostility to think Western culture is violent. I think Western culture is violent. That doesn't make me anti-American. The rest of that paragraph was about attitudes towards Christianity and Jews. It was completely irrelevant and could not be made relevant, because it was based on a poll that has little to do with the topic. Likewise, it is not opposition or hostility for favorable attitudes to decline, but that is how the section on Europe interpreted British poll results. An anti-Americanism article cannot consist of whatever the editors interpret to be anti-Americanism. Life.temp (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What you did, to be more precise, was cut everything from the section without any attempt to rework or provide your own sources. Marskell (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop gutting the article. If you believe something does not apply to the article's topic, is a POV, is not sourced properly, fix the problem - rework it, don't just desecrate other peoples' work. It is desrespectable and an insult to other editors. Wikipedia is about sharing knowledge it is not a battel field, where if you do not like or agree with something it must go. Fix it and compromise to build consensus. Igor Berger (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If something "does not apply to the article's topic, is a POV, is not sourced properly," then removing it is appropriate. And you shouldn't be lecturing anyone on using Wikipedia as a "battel field" (sic) nor consensus building. --83.167.192.153 (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe this article is not encyclopidic and should be deleted? This article has undergone deletion review of anti-Americanism and it was determined the article is WP:NPOV and a 'keep To consistently argue for the article deletion is disruptive and needs to be avoided. Please read Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground Wikipedia is not a battleground and Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Please familiarize yourself with the article's history so you can help us improve the article productively. Igor Berger (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't determined that the article was NPOV. It was determined that the article shouldn't be deleted. Anonymous is right -- anything irrelevant, not sourced properly, or POV can and should be removed. If anyone wants to find better sources that would make content NPOV, relevant and properly sourced, they can always restore the text afterwards. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:35, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

What I deleted: opinion polls that did not describe themselves as polls of anti-Americanism, did not ask their subjects if they described themselves as anti-Americanism, did not ask if people have opposition or hostility to American culture, people, or policy, and in the case of the poll of Middle Easterners, was not even about the US. I also deleted extraneous information about attitudes of Arabs towards Jews and Christians. I made no effort to find other sources because there were no other sources: I specifically deleted cites of these irrelevant polls. Life.temp (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Split

As I described somewhere above, I've begun a new article, Anti-Americanism in philosophy. This is to restore the deleted content from this article.

Since the deleted content was mostly sourced by philosophical statements about the nature of anti-Americanism and of what can be "considered" or "classified" as anti-Americanism, it makes sense to have an article about that -- the philosophical definition of the term, and what all the various philosophers and other opinionated authors have to say about it.

See the talk page there if you want to help create that article. I've posted a link to an old version of this article that I'm working with in order to restore the deleted content. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:04, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

PS: Note though, that wording of that new article should follow a "this author says this, that author says that" format. I'd like to avoid the trap we encountered here, of using weasel words such as "often considered" and "generally accepted" and then sourcing those statements with a couple of quotes by people who agree. Also see WP:SYN.Equazcion •✗/C • 21:08, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the new article to a better title, Anti-Americanism as a philosophical term. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:17, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I realized this new article could really just be a subsection here, so I merged it back. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:53, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Good work! Igor Berger (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem

This article covers four distinct issues, and I've made an attempt at organizing them. It'll probably take some more work before it's all sorted out:

• Self-admitted Anti-Americanism -- as in, "We hate America"
• Things that look anti-American -- For example, Kipling's "White Man's Burden". No source is given that says this is anti-Americanism. We just see it as "obvious".
• Classification by observers -- this is the philosophical use, whereby someone sees a sentiment and classifies it as anti-American. Think of this as the sourced version of "things that look anti-American", albeit sourced by an opinion piece.
• Criticism of the classification -- this is criticism of the philosophical use. The description of its use as a "pejorative" is an example of this. Basically, it's when one philosopher criticizes another philosopher for applying the label of anti-Americanism as a blanket term.

These were all previously thrown together in a jumbled mess and treated as the same use, which was, I think, the source of much of the conflict here. I'm trying to sort this all out into different sections of the article, as you can see from the changes I've made already. I appreciate any thoughts.

PS: Under this new way of thinking, nothing would actually need to be removed, except for content that falls under the second category -- things that just look anti-american -- since those are unsourced. Everything else can be kept (restored), as long as it's all organized into the right sections and worded the right way. That means all those statements sourced with opinion pieces can be restored, as long as they're worded so as to describe them as opinions of one author, and nothing more. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:53, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if we can agree that Wikipedia should only identify self-declarations of anti-Americanism as anti-Americanism. If not, why not? Life.temp (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ew, oh, ew, oh: Geez you're trying to sort it out? By deleting everything you see? By adding no sources of your own? By engaging nothing? Well! Very sorry. Here, I thought you were the same editor I've seen for three years--took a passing fancy to the article and doesn't actually give a shit. I'm happy to know it's all being sorted out by people who provide no references of their own. Really. Blah blah. You'll leave. Marskell (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The "why not" is basically right in front of you -- while academically the argument could be made, most people simply wouldn't accept it. It would be better to describe all sourced uses, while keeping them separate. They also need to be described the right way, as in, "This author says this", rather than "this is generally thought of as...". That should satisfy both sides, I think. We're just summarizing an opinion that an author has stated, not making a decision to characterize something one way or another. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:28, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Wikipedia is an encyclopidia. It is not censored. We like America we do not like America has no relevency. Igor Berger (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Bleh, blah. They'll lose interest. Marskell (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Igor, it does have a lot of relevance, since "We don't like America" is the only thing everyone actually agrees is anti-Americanism. It's everything else that's in question. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:38, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

What I meant Wikipedia editors and Wikipedia are NPOV not about if we like something or do not like it. I may not like GWB but I do not try to delete his article. Igor Berger (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I can't do anything if some editor who is very pissed off at me for some unknown reason is going to revert my efforts, despite the fact that I restored things she complained I deleted. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:45, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, it would be helpful if you could respond to my assessment constructively rather than saying "blah blah". Equazcion •✗/C • 22:57, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

What would really be helpful, sir, is if you could point to the consensus for gutting this article. I would like to see it. I would like the sheet that allowed you to come along and edit without recourse or reason to the edits prior to your appearance... That would be good.

But shit, you don't have that consensus? Of course you don't--you are an out-of-nowhere mf on this article. So keep talking. You'll leave eventually. Marskell (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, I invited Equazcion to help. Hey might have been infulenced by Life.temp to go at it too quickly, but let's assume good faith about his edits. Igor Berger (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There was an edit war going on, and I came and tried to solve it. I don't need to have been here before in order to do that. Repeating that there's no consensus isn't constructive. Right now I'm attempting to restore everything in a way that won't cause the same conflict. If you disagree with my method of doing that, which I've outlined above, could you tell me why? Equazcion •✗/C • 23:11, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what is the best way of doing it, but we need to put back what was taking out, because it supports the whole article. The history part, the philosophy part. With out that the article lacks roots of what is anti-Americanism, what has created this ideology. So think about where to put it and under what header. Of course personal opinions of POV editors do not belong in the article. If something is not sourced properly it can be resourced. But the prior content had and has meaning and relevency to the article. Also pieces like "French do not like McDonalds because they think Americans are fat", is not for this article - it is just crap! Igor Berger (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting, Marskell. Please discuss this, and if not then don't complain when I revert your removal. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:32, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Relax. He will come around and you can discuss with him which way it is better to go about this. No need to revert nothing. We are not She! Igor Berger (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I most certainly can and will revert if Marskell doesn't discuss this. I'll give it a day or so though. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:50, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)

What do you want to revert? You want to revert something go do it. Please do not give Ultimatum. We are not at War here, are we? Igor Berger (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting back on track, I think Equazcion's earlier proposal solves many problems elegantly: Those who self-declare as anti-American should be called that; those who do not, should not be called that. That disolves the arguments about what words mean, it disolves the arguments about what should be interpreted as anti-American, it disolves the problem of whether anything should be called anti-American or whether the label is inherently an act of interpretation. It provides an avenue to neutral writing on a well-defined topic. Life.temp (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

So you are proposing that this article be a collection of quotes of individuals who declare themselves anti-American? So if America commits autracities in some third world countiry and violates that country sovereignty, and the president of that country comes to U.N. assembly and calls George W. Bush The White Devil you would not consider this anti-Americanism, because he did not declare that he is anti-American on the U.N. floor! Am I getting you correctly dudette, or is there more to this? Igor Berger (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Igor, that's not what's been proposed at all. But yes you're right, if US soldiers commit "atrocities" in another country and that country's leader complains about it to the UN, that is not necessarily anti-Americanism. Though if an author has that opinion, we can describe that opinion here. We're just not making any definitive characterizations here. That's the goal. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:25, 12 Apr 2008 (UTC)

That is a very narrow definiton! You should read other "anti" country articles and see that it is not applied in such matter. Try Anti-Canadianism There is no need to have the author of the source use the word "anti-Americanism" in describing the act. He could say dislike or hostility towards American behaviour, politics, or goverment. Igor Berger (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, those authors' views would still be included in the article; just in the proper place and worded the right way. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:57, 12 Apr 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Japanese people are angry at Americans for American service men rapping and pillaging Okinawa. But I have a problem with Life.temp first day Polemic argument that anti-Americanism is only a dictionary definition and if the article is to be kept and not deleted as per her original request we must source only self-identifiers who say they are anti-American, using the exact word. Like someone who oppresses minorities must call themselves anti-humanrights activist, if not, their abuses are not included in human rights abuse articles. This is nonsens! Igor Berger (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, no need to continue arguing just because of something someone said a while ago. Let's just drop that. We seem to have settled on a solution, as long as Marskell doesn't start throwing fits again. I'll still wait til tomorrow before I revert her though, in case she has any points she'd like to bring up. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:17, 12 Apr 2008 (UTC)

So what are you proposing? Perceived acts of anti-Americanism behavior section? I mean if Chumsky calls the behavior anti-Americanism that is the sourced authority for all acts as such as he defines. There is no need for the word perceived, because the acts are self referring to the source. Igor Berger (talk) 03:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Chomsky is not the authority on what is and isn't anti-Americanism just 'cause he has an opinion. If he classifies something as anti-American, then we present that as his opinion. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:43, 12 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Okay so do we need to have the section name as percieved anti-Americanism? I do not believe it is necessary! Look at the other anti-country articles and use the same format. Igor Berger (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with other articles right now. They may have their own problems but we're dealing with this one now. My proposal is a section on anti-Americanism as a philosophical term, not "perceived". I just explained why this is necessary and you seemed to agree, but then you continue on saying a separate section isn't necessary. It might be best if you just wait until I make the changes, Igor, then you can see exactly what my version looks like and discuss your concerns. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:50, 12 Apr 2008 (UTC)

You did not understand me. I like the philosophical term Scroll up and you will see I said you did a good job after the edit. What I do not want is something like alleged or perceived for the different acts. American servicemen raping Japanese woman in Okinawa, making Japanese people angry at America is not alleged or percived anti-Americanism, it is a fact. Igor Berger (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider calling Bush "the white devil" anti-Americanism, although I might consider it anti-Bush. More to the point, why not just report what was said and let the reader decide if it's anti-Americanism? Just because we are editors of a Wiki-encyclopedia doesn't make us experts on interpreting political matters. Life.temp (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky is an expert in the political and philosophical use of language, as such he easily meets the WP standard to define "Anti-Americanism", what he says on language is Expert opinion not "opinion". ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible addition

What is of interest regarding the topic of Anti-Americanism about such incidents is that they seem to generate more anti-American feelings than incidents such as (for example) this and many like it generated anti-Japanese feelings. Comments like this upon such things draw reactions like this. I don't want to pick on Japan specifically here, nor do I want to rehash the Comfort women topic here in comparison to rape incidents involving US military personnel. I do have the impression, though, that incidents involving Americans as baddies tend to generate more anti-American reaction than incidents involving other groups as baddies generate anti-their_group reaction. That is the on-topic point of interest in an article about anti-Americanism. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

"rehash the Comfort women topic here in comparison to rape incidents involving US military personnel" Apperantly you do that why you mentioned them. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the comfort women topic didn't come immediately to my mind. On seeing: "Emotions have run high against the U.S. military -- mostly located on the Japanese island of Okinawa -- after the arrest of a U.S. Marine in the alleged rape of a 14-year-old Japanese girl as well as allegations that a U.S. Army employee raped a Filipino woman." from Marskell, I googled "raped by japanese", wondering if I would hit any accounts of rapes by individual Japanese persons which I could use to point up my feeling that acts by American baddies generate more anti-American feelings than acts by non-American baddies generate anti-their_group feelings. Some comfort women material (being arguably officially accepted behavior in those cases, vs. officially condemned behavior in the cases of the Americans) came up early in the google hits, and I used those as examples in my followup. No, I don't think it would be very productive to rehash the comfort women topic here except in the limited sense in which I used it — to illustrate that perceived difference in Anti-Americanism vs. Anti-groups_other_than_Americans_ism difference which I mentioned. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong article. Bring to Japanese war crimes or something. Igor Berger (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's the right article, and you bring up a good point; I think at least a few authors will agree that people do tend to look for reasons to badmouth America. This could possibly be added to the article, but only as an opinion, and only if there's a reliable outside source for it. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:52, 12 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Reasons to badmouth America? Why is that? Give me one example. Yes America is the land of liberty let's badmouth it...Igor Berger (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)You talking about imperialistic Japan. Is Japan now disrespecting other peoples like America is? Current events speak for themselves. If Japan would be doing crap now, the world would talk about it. Igor Berger (talk) 06:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)