Talk:Anti-Americanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-Americanism article.
Article policies
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 14 February 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I.
Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.

Special note: To avoid an external link farm, the numerous articles posted on the subject have been moved to Talk:Anti-Americanism/External link

Contents

[edit] Degeneracy Thesis: Rationale for Deletion

The main problem with this section is that it isn't about the United States. The degeneracy theory is about the physical nature of the New World. It also gives severely undue weight to the theory of two people. The section provides exactly two individuals who suggest calling the degeneracy theories anti-American: James Ceaser and Philippe Roger. One theory, not about anti-Americanism in any modern sense, vaguely interpreted as anti-americanism by two people, doesn't merit a five paragraph section. Here is what Ceaser actually says about this theory:

It can be conceived of as a kind of prehistory of anti-Americanism, since it occurred mostly before the founding of the United States and referred not just to this country but to all of the New World.

The source itself says it is not about the USA and the strongest connection is that "it can be conceived as a kind of pre-history." The section also has the usual misrepresentation, presentation of opinion as fact, lack of sourcing, and bias. It begins with weasel words "According to critics..." by which it really means "two critics." How do we know this interpretation of critics is anything but fringe theory? Using the third source, Sophie Meunier, is misleading because the source she gives in her paper is just Philippe Roger (the Meunir paper itself appears to be an unpublished.)

James Ceaser identifies the Comte de Buffon, a leading French naturalist, as the originator of the theory, but Dutchman Cornelius de Pauw, court philosopher to Frederick II of Prussia became its leading proponent.[4] In 1768, de Pauw described America as "degenerate or monstrous" colonies and argued that, "the weakest European could crush them with ease."[26] The great French writer Voltaire joined Buffon and others in making the argument.[25]

Same problems here. The source for the Voltaire claim is the same quote in the same paper by Meunir--that actually has Roger as its source. We still have exactly two critics backing all of this. (The source is also misrepresented, as it doesn't present Voltaire as saying anything about the New World being "degenerate or monstrous" or that "the weakest European could crush them with ease." It merely says he attempted to use science to show the New World was inferior.)

The theory was extended to argue that the natural environment of the United States would prevent it from ever producing true culture. Paraphrasing de Pauw, the French Encyclopedist Abbé Raynal wrote, "America has not yet produced a good poet, an able mathematician, one man of genius in a single art or a single science."[27] (So virulent was Raynal's antipathy that his book was suppressed by the French monarchy.) The theory was debated and rejected by early American thinkers such as Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson; Jefferson, in his Notes on the State of Virginia (1781), provided a detailed rebuttal of de Buffon.[4]

This has zilch to do with anti-Americanism. It is probably true that, in 1770, America had not produced a great poet, mathematician, artist or scientist. Who can name one? Thomas Jefferson's rebuttal, cited in the article, mostly doesn't dispute the claim, arguing instead that America just hadn't existed long enough to produce greatness.

Bill Grantham, reviewing Philippe Roger, suggests that the idea of degeneracy posited a symbolic, as well as a scientific America, that would evolve beyond the original thesis.

This is a misrepresentation. Grantham describes that as Roger's view, as part of his review of Roger's book, A Geneology of anti-Americanism (2002). It's the same book previously cited in this section, and the same book cited by Meunir in the unpublished paper previously cited in this section. We still have exactly two critics who have suggested that degeneracy theories be considered a "kind of pre-history" of anti-Americanism. Two opinons wouldn't come close to being significant, even if their subject were squarely focussed on anti-Americanism, which it isn't.

The last paragraph comes entirely from the same Ceaser article that has now been used as a source 4 times in this section. This section is based entirely on two sources: one article by Ceaser and one book by Roger. The other sources, Grantham and Meunir, are just indirect references to those two sources. We are using this article as platform to promote a minority view. It needs to be deleted. Life.temp (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your vandalism. Marskell (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I hate to throw policy in your face, as I'm sure you already know this, but Life.temp's actions are hardly vandalism. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism.". You disagree on what the article should contain. Now, I haven't been here from the start, but Life.temp's current behaviour doesn't strike me as bad faith efforts to compromise the encyclopedia. He's explained above why he doesn't think that section should be in the article. It would be better to refute his arguments than calling it vandalism. henrik•talk 12:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not consider gutting an entire section good faith. I simply don't. It's sourced, it's relevant, and it required work on my part. I consider it vandalism. We have argued with Life.temp repeatedly. He has made no attempt to improve sections; he has brought no sources of his own. His efforts at improvement have consisted of cutting sections he doesn't like whenever the mood strikes. The only thing he has advocated leaving is Chomsky, so the POV is clear. No matter how many sources I bring for that section he's going to come up with logical gymnastics to try to get it off the page.
As for the points above, nowhere in policy does it say that some minimum number of academics must have commented on something for it to be notable. JSTOR shows an academic reference to the "degeneracy thesis" as early as 1974 (if I can get a hold of it, I will try to add it). It's not a "fringe theory" or a "minority point of view"—two new failures of comprehension on Life.temp's part. It's an interesting piece of history that was obviously widely debated in early America; perfectly legitimate for inclusion. Marskell (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reasons given for assuming the removal is bad faith: none. Reasons given for why the section doesn't belong: many (above and elsewhere). You haven't argued with me, in the sense of giving reasons, at all. You've made personal attacks and contradicted conclusions, just as you do above. Reasons given that this article is improved by reduction: much of it violates core policies on neutrality, on negative descriptive of living cultures and people, original research, and UNDUE WEIGHT. Not only does removing junk remove biased text, it simultaneously addresses the problem of undue weight. The repetition of the assumption that only edits that add material are constructive, while those that remove it are disruptive, is getting tiresome. It's ungrounded in logic or policy. Editing by removal is just as valid as editing by addition.
  • Regarding the Degeneracy Theory, calling my reasons "logical gymnastics" is just another attack on a person where an attack on his idea is required. You misconstrued the objection: it is not the degeneracy that seems to be a fringe theory (although that's possible), but the interpretation of it as a "kind of prehistory of anti-Americanism." That interpretation exists in one article and one book. Period. It is not even described by its proponents as being squarely related to our topic. There are hundreds of thousands of political scientists and historians in the world, and you want to give an interpretation advanced by two of them a five paragraph section of its own in an article which barely relates to that interpretation. I agree it is in an interesting piece of history: put it in its own article and created a link to it. Life.temp (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The fact that a only a few sources have been given is not necessarily a problem in itself. As long as there are scholarly sources that describe it as proto-AA, and we don't have any sources contradicting that WP:FRINGE is not really applicable. As for your criticism that it is given too much weight, that can be fixed by improving and expanding the rest of the article too. henrik•talk 20:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Since initially replying, I have added two more sources describing the thesis and foregrounding its importance to early Euro-American hostility. Looking through JSTOR a little, there is a small but respectable corpus on this topic. It clearly involves prejudice towards the United States that is of historical interest and has been described by academics vis-a-vis the term anti-Americanism. I agree with Henrik that "improving and expanding the rest of the article" is the larger point. I would like to source other sections in the same way. Marskell (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Giving it a 5 paragraph section of its own presents it as very notable. We should not make it seem more notable than it is. The theory that degeneracy theories are anti-American has been suggested in exactly two places. I'm not sure how expanding the rest of the article addresses the undue weight problem. Do you mean we should make the article so long, a five-paragraph section for a minor theory seems proportional? I think the more standard, Wikipedian approach, is to create a separate article, mention that briefly here, and link to it. As I've said, it's simply not valid to equate improving the article with expanding it. Particularly, when there is no agreement on what the article is really about. As it stands, George W. Bush fits this article's definition of anti-American. Can I expand the article by describing the President's anti-Americanism? Life.temp (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
There are three papers that situate the thesis in terms of anti-Americanism. Two that describe the idea as clear Euro hostility towards America without specifically mentioning AA. And two primary sources with obvious bigotry expressed. In short, it is a robustly sourced section.
But, as feared, you are going to want to remove even after other people work to improve and properly source the article. (I guess that should have been expected.) Anyway, carry on shifting goalposts. I'll carry on sourcing the article. Once the page becomes more coherent, the exact weight needed for this section will become more clear. Marskell (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It would help if you explained what you are talking about. There are two original interpretations of the degeneracy thesis as "a kind of pre-history of anti-Americanism"--Ceaser and Roger. That's it, and I don't mean that's it in the article. I mean, that's all there is in the world, as far as I can tell. There are no sources that describe "hostility" toward America in the context of this article, since the USA didn't exist at that time. Nor are any of these opinions clear hostility toward anything in the context of the 1700's. The rest of what I deleted was wrongly sourced. For example, you used a book review of Roger as an original, third, source of Roger's ideas. The book reviewer didn't say what you said he did. The proposal that American hadn't produced a great poet in 1770 doesn't support the theory that people degenerated after arrival in America. And so on. Life.temp (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be suggesting that because Grantham and Munier rely, in part, on Roger and Ceaser they don't count as sources themselves. Nothing in policy supports you on that. Those are four sources that describe the concept vis-a-vis the term AA. There are two other sources that provide background on the thesis with scholarship extending back to at least the 1970s. Again, it's a robustly sourced section and all you're trying to do is shift goalposts to gut the article. Marskell (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Sources for what? Grantham doesn't say the degeneracy thesis was anti-Americanism. He is writing a book review, and merely reports what Roger says. You have an entire paragraph that factually misrepresents Grantham as a source calling something anti-American. You misrepresent him as saying what is actually said by Roger. Then, you use Grantham--a book reviewer--as a third source so you can call the section "robustly sourced." Meunir's article--apparently an unpublished paper--doesn't give any independent opinions about Voltaire or the alleged evidence of the degeneracy thesis. You are essentially saying "She says Roger says..." and then calling that a fourth source. The other sources either don't support what is in the text, or are inaccessible (e.g the JSTOR). Life.temp (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I tweaked the sentence to make clear Grantham is quoting Roger. Beyond that you have identified no problems with the sourcing. We are free to use book reviews. We are free to use JSTOR papers. Meunier's is a seminar paper and she's well-published elsewhere. Goldstein and Danzer provide ample background on the thesis. The sources do support what is in text. So keep on talking but I'm done here. Marskell (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
If you are "done here" then there is not much reason to continue talking. I will simply restore the my compromise version, which keeps the section but streamlines it to a basic overview, and clarifies that this interpretation is not widespread. If you want to actually discuss it, let me know. Life.temp (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, I found the Degeneracy section to be just plain dumb, at least in this context. I admire your work on the section, which is well-written, and the subject is certainly valuable as a relic of pseudo-science, but I wouldn't include it in an article on anti-Americanism. As an American, I didn't find it offensive at all, and I cannot imagine that anyone would. It serves as little more than an incitement to giggle. Jdtapaboc (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh certainly, the thesis itself is bonkers. (Apparently some advocated that the Americas had emerged from the Flood later than the Old World and this was the main climatic problem...) But we don't judge inclusion here on whether a modern American is offended. Sources situate it as an early prejudice toward the country that early Americans saw as hostility (however weird it seems in retrospect) and thus so can we. Marskell (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is fine as a backdrop to the history of AA. It can be used as an illustration that criticism towards the New World, both rational and irrational has changed over the times. Early Americans seem to have thought it a thesis worth refuting. And as Marskell says, we're here to report on what sources state, not to advocate what we personally find believable. henrik•talk 20:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the article could be structured in a way that clearly set Degeneracy as a backdrop/precursor to AA. The order is there, but the structure is not; the whole page reads like a jumbled hodgepodge of ideas at present. Maybe it's just me?
I'd also like to see a section devoted to anti-Americanism within America, as I mentioned above under "Chomsky quote." Jdtapaboc (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The hodgepodge thing has been a problem. I have organized it as a rough chronology today. At least now we're not jumping to Anti-Globalization and then jumping back to the early 20th century etc. On your last point, I would suggest starting a section or doing something up in your sandbox. Might want to do some Google scholar searches on McCarythism and "unamerican" to see if contemporary uses of anti-American have been compared. Marskell (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Marksell

  • I deleted the section. You accused me of gutting and reverted.
  • I compromised by shortening the section. I took out two paragraphs and merged the last and the first, leaving the basics. You accused me of gutting and reverted.
  • I just made an edit not aimed at removal, but mainly at clarifying what I think is important. It removed one complete sentence, which was trivial and obvious POV: "The sense of a cocksure character amongst Americans continued throughout the nineteenth century." You reverted my edits (and two intermediate edits by someone else), without explanation.

You've spent almost two months berating editors for thinking they can improve the article by taking things out. Now you are reverting minor edits not based on removing text, and doing it without explanation.

Lord Marksell, will you tell your humble subjects what editing you allow in your domain? Life.temp (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and sarcastic remarks are against wikipedia policy. Colin4C (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
The constant low level sniping from everybody on this talk page isn't helping. All involved need to make an effort to treat each other with more respect. Pretty much every single comment I've seen here take a swipe at the opposition. It's been a long time since I saw a more infected talk page. Seriously, stop it before I block the lot of you.
I have undone Marskell's revert for now, pending an explanation on what he found problematic with them. henrik•talk 11:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Marksell reverted much of it, again. Henrik, if I seem frustrated/angry it's because there's nothing I can do. I'm not allowed to edit the article, and I'm not listened to in Talk. If I'm blocked, I'm not allowed to edit the article and I'm not listened to in Talk. What difference does anything make?
Before you came to this article, I requested formal mediation. Marksell refused. I requested arbitration. Marksell argued against it. I requested informal mediation. Colin shredded it and was warned for personal attacks. I request a Third Opinion. Colin flamed him when he suggested the article could be shortened. Now I've made an RfC. Does it look like Colin is taking it seriously?
So now I don't seem very committed to dispute resolution. What steps of dispute resolution are left?
Your "solution" is tell me I shouldn't want what I want. I shouldn't think the article is improved by reduction. That's not a solution. Life.temp (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first paragraph of this section: It should give the sources of the interpretation of anti-Americanism. The basis for this entire section is found in two reliable sources: Ceaser and Roger. They are the ones who interpret these kooky 18th century theories as anti-Americanism. We wouldn't spend four paragraphs developing a Noam Chomsky opinion, and not mention Chomsky until the fifth paragraph. The same is true of Roger and Ceaser. The fact that only two historians have advanced this interpretation is germane. We don't want to mislead readers into thinking it is a consensus or even majority view among historians. Life.temp (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Marksell, the link I can see that you added is this. [1] The abstract mentions neither anti-Americanism nor the Degeneracy Thesis. Regardless of that, the normal place to identify the authors of a theory is when they are first cited, which means in the first paragraph in the case of Ceaser and Roger. They are also the main sources whose ideas the section develops in subsequent paragraphs. Life.temp (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your edit which removed the explicit attribution of the opinion to its source (O'Connor). Please avoid giving opinions, sourced or not, in Wikipedia's narrative voice. It is not, and should not be, an offical Wikipedia position that "A more generalized hostility towards the United States developed in Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, with the view that the country was culturally backward." That is an interpretation, and needs to be specified as such. Life.temp (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Europe section

I have a few thoughts about the Europe section under "Regional attitudes". It does a relatively poor job at conveying the complexity of the US-European relationship in my opinion. Generally, European leaders have a relatively strong consensus that a strong and healthy friendship with the US is in the best interest of both Europe and the world.

The Iraq war of 2003 was a significant disagreement and lead to a large amount of press describing it as anti-Americanism (also coupled with quite a bit of Anti-French sentiment in the US) and is obviously the most visible case.

I question whether opinion polls showing declining approval ratings in recent should really be mentioned. One could argue that there is a very good reason for that (the Iraq failure), and it is mirrored by a corresponding decline in internal American polls towards its own administration.

But almost completely absent is the left/communistic political tradition, which is still going strong. I think this is the best representative of "true" anti-Americanism in Europe (being "fundamentally opposed to parts of US culture")

I'll attempt to put together a few changed paragraphs among these lines and will post them here for review in the coming days. Any feedback or thoughts is of course welcome. henrik•talk 20:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

With the timeline/history basis the whole regional attitudes section needs to be rethought. Colin, for instance, built up a well-referenced section on Latin America, but it will need to be split up into 19th, early-20th, late-20th and so on for the timeline. I was staring at it tonight wondering how best to do the surgery...
I very much agree that this shouldn't be too much about post-Iraq polls. The focus on Bush overwhelmes so much of the history on the topic in Europe. Let's see what you come up with. Marskell (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not tenable to call anyone with a non-capitalist political philosophy "anti-American," even though that could be described as opposition to American culture.
Well, that's not quite what I propose. Obviously any criticism would be sourced, and not more general than what seems to be the prevailing view. But you can hardly disagree that there is significant and persistent criticism of the US among people with a non-capitalist political view. henrik•talk 21:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Is there a good reason we are proceeding with a timeline approach when there is an explicit lack of consensus for a timeline approach? (Note that calling me names isn't a reason.) Life.temp (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't think of a better way to structure any article that traverses time. Biographies begin with birth and end with death. An article on a war begins with the causes and ends with the aftermath. If this article were to become a mere definition of anti-Americanism, then there would be no need for a timeline, but presumably the intent here is to give both a definition as well as a historical backdrop and evolution of meaning. Further complicating structuring is that a regional delineation is also absolutely necessary (including an as yet nonexistent but vital section on anti-Americanism within America). The article seems to currently deal with this by having both timelines within regions and regions within the main timeline. This is pretty messy, but what else can be done? Jdtapaboc (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You are the only one objecting to the timeline approach—but then, you are objecting to everything. I don't see a lack of consensus. In any case, let's see what Henrik can work up. Marskell (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You haven't really provided any alternative approaches though. henrik•talk 21:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I presume that's directed at Life.temp and I agree. If you reject timeline, themes, and regions, how exactly are we supposed to organize the article? Per above with Henrik, timeline is simplest. Marskell (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
If somebody is objecting (with reasons), there is a lack of consensus. I gave my alternative approach here: "A better structure would be to choose a few choice examples featuring debate about the applicability of the term, describe both sides, and leave it at that." This, after spending considerable time explaining the reasons I objected to Marksell's approach, in the "Framing" section above [2] . Did Marksell (or anyone) address those reasons? Of course not. Life.temp (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
How would that structure address the two-and-a-half centuries that sources have discussed vis-a-vis the term? Marskell (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


There is significant and persistent criticism of everything; the US is no exception. I disagree that it is neutral to call that anti-Americanism. Calling something anti-American is an opinion, generally (but not universally) negative. It suggests prejudice. A documented part of the debate is that the term is propaganda; we implicitly take sides in that debate when we ignore that concern, as we do throughout the "History" and "Regional Attitudes" sections. The label is particularly not neutral when it is applied to people who don't accept the label for themselves, as is the case when it is sweepingly applied to whole cultures such as "the French", Japan, the Middle East and Latin America. The problem is particularly difficult for Wikipedia when it involves the cultural bias of the encyclopedia: non-English speaking people are obviously not equally represented in an English-language wiki. Does anybody really think there would be consensus about the regional attitudes section if people from those regions were equally represented here? I've made these points endlessly, which Marksell thinks is grounds, not to think about it, but to call it a "crusade," "trolling," "sock-puppetry," "vandalism" etc. The one thing he hasn't done is address the points. When writing about cultures that can't represent themselves here, extra sensitivity to neutrality is required. Life.temp (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Lets avoid personal attacks on wikipedia editors please and talk about the issues. And just to say that if a community really hated America, being a 'proud anti-American' would be a term of praise rather than being pejorative. E.g when Mexico lost virtually half its territory to the USA it was perfectly understandable that a lot of the people there adopted anti-American attitudes. If the American army came and grabbed half your territory and killed a lot of your citizens then 'pro-Americanism' would be the pejorative term rather than the reverse. Hopefully the copy of Rubin and Colp's history of anti-Americanism I ordered will arrive soon so I can give chapter and verse refs. Colin4C (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
If a community values "being a proud anti-American", it should be easy to document the community saying that. If they don't say it, it is not our place to say it for them. Life.temp (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I just added a short summary from Rubin, Colin, which you might find interesting. I think that Korean film info maybe over-specific and could be shortened.
I am going to work on the Ideolgy bit next. Marskell (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I saw the film last night and thought of this article... I'm not the cleverest person in the world but even I could see the broad anti-American shafts in a film in which the Yanks propose to blanket Seoul with "Agent Yellow" in order to get rid of a mutant monster which they themselves were responsible for creating. Colin4C (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Life.temp has just deleted everything I wrote without stating his objections here on the talk page. I have therefore restored the valid referenced material on anti-Americanism in popular culture in Korea. Colin4C (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the material he deleted:
The recent Korean monster film The Host (2006) has been described as anti-American. The film was in part inspired by an incident in 2000 in which a mortician working for the U.S. military in Seoul dumped a large amount of formaldehyde down the drain. In the film the dumped chemicals engender a horrible mutated monster from the river which menaces the inhabitants of Seoul.[1]The American military situated in South Korea is portrayed as uncaring about the effects their activities have on the locals. The chemical agent used by the American military to combat the monster in the end, named "Agent Yellow" in a thinly-veiled reference to Agent Orange was also used to satirical effect.[2]The director, Bong Joon-ho, commented on the issue: "It's a stretch to simplify The Host as an anti-American film, but there is certainly a metaphor and political commentary about the U.S."[3]Because of its themes that can be seen as critical of the United States, the film was actually lauded by North Korean authorities,[4] a rarity for a South Korean blockbuster film. Colin4C (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
As the sources indicate Anti-Americanism is a real thing happening in the world of reality with real implications about public policy (i.e. the relationship between North and South Korea). Hiding our heads in sand whilst listening to Fox News turned up loud on our earphones will not make anti-Americanism dissapear. Neither will censoring material on it in the wikipedia help. It is out there. Believe it. The wikipedia should not be censored.Colin4C (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to say I think the case for including "The Host" as an example of AA seems rather weak. Its a bit hard to say for sure though, because several of the refs doesn't work! But if it only includes "themes that can be seen as critical of the US", the doesn't mean it should be in this article. We shouldn't cheapen the expression by including everything vaguely critical of the US. (the reuters and the yonhapnews.co.kr refs doesn't work for me, could you please give working URLs?)
Also, Colin, please try to avoid weasel wording. When you want the text to express a view, it should be attributed to someone. henrik•talk 14:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
To elaborate just a little bit, I think a better direction to take this article is to make it into a discussion of the concept of anti-Americanism rather than a catalog of criticism against the U.S. henrik•talk 14:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The concept of anti-Americanism is just an empty formula. Please let's write about what happens in the real world. Anti-Americanism has a geneaology and a history. For instance in the Korean film above 'Agent Yellow' is obviously an allusion to Agent Orange used to defoliate the jungles in the Vietnam War, which latter event, in my personal recollection provoked protests directed at the American Embassy in Grovesnor Square, London and anti-American protests world-wide. Colin4C (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It was quite interesting to follow the evolution of your reply :) My thought is that there are probably better places to follow every detail of what happens in the "real world" than an encyclopedia article. We should try to capture major trends and thoughts here, not details (and to reply to one of your intermediate edits: No, you could hardly call 9/11 or bin Laden a detail. But a 2006 Korean movie probably is one, at least in my mind). Also, for this and other reasons, I think we should strongly prefer high quality scholarly sources on this article. henrik•talk 15:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, you changed it again :)
My reply to that is: So lets write about Agent Orange and the Vietnam War and the protests and sentiments it led to instead of a Korean movie. henrik•talk 15:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I just learnt something from the wikipedia! Looking at the Agent Orange page it seems that it was (secretly) used in Korea as well - during the Korean War. Now I understand the film a bit better...One is never too old to learn...Colin4C (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I agree with this: "To elaborate just a little bit, I think a better direction to take this article is to make it into a discussion of the concept of anti-Americanism rather than a catalog of criticism against the U.S." I'm inclined to say the "Definitions and Usage" section should be the main body of the article, as it outlines the concept and gives a roughly balanced view of the debate about it. Specific accusations of anti-Americanism should be added with a careful eye for neutrality and equal weight. This is particularly important when whole cultures are labeled as anti-American. Life.temp (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The wikipedia is not a dictionary. That is OFFICIAL policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. Colin4C (talk) A definition of a word is just an empty formula, which tells us nothing about the real world. This has been known since the birth of empirical science and philosophy in the 16th century. Aristotle and scholastic philosophy are dead. Lets not revive them here. 10:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Tbilisi is not Europe and should not be mentioned in this section. Erikhansson1 (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: Degeneracy Thesis

A user has requested comment on politics for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCpol list}}.

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.


Should the Degeneracy Thesis section be shortened or deleted? Note that this article is 70k long (the main body is around 35k). Wikipedia recommends 30k to 50k as a maximum [3] 23:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Shorten (or delete). It's a curious piece of intellectual thought from 200 years ago that is peripheral to the article. It has little to do with the topic today; the Degeneracy thesis dates from 1770 and applied to all of the New World (before the USA existed). Only two historians have published interpretations of it as a kind of anti-Americanism (Ceaser and Roger...all the other sources are indirect refs of those two). An opinion found in only two reliable sources, on a topic borderline related to the article subject, in an article that already meets the recommended length. Six paragraphs is far too much. The degeneracy thesis is worth its own article, so a spinoff and a brief link here would also be an appropriate solution. Life.temp (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Expand. I think the Degeneracy thesis is fascinating. I would like to know more about it, so I think this section should be expanded. Colin4C (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

As we work through the article the relative weight needed for each section will become more clear; for instance, the two paragraphs on evolution of the thesis might be shuffled out elsewhere. The section is not long and I fail to see how it serves the reader to cut for the sake of cutting it. (This is becoming something of a vendetta.) At 33k readable prose the article does not exceed any guidelines. Marskell (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I would agree. As the article develops, we'll see what the need is for that section, perhaps leaving it or trimming it here and developing it into an article of its own. At least everybody seems to agree that it is an interesting piece of history. henrik•talk 21:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, it is 35k of readable prose, which is still in the danger zone of readability. The guideline is 30-50k. Life.temp (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plagiarism

Returning to the task of improving the article, my edit to remove plagiarism was reverted without discussion! Very shocking! I explained my concern here [4], which received no response. Interestingly, Colin4C's response was not to remove the plagiarism, but to remove the source, making the plagiarism harder to detect. [5] Life.temp (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Removing the source makes things worse. Removing the section doesn't do much good to the article istself though, either. When citing, people should either quote or write in their own words, which was obviously not done, or at least done well. Use the source, but use the main ideas and put them in there with no "rewording" or plagerism. Though, remember, Wikipedia wouldn't get sued for it, the person who put it up there, however, can be. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 00:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I have returned the source. Plagiarism is claiming you are the author of material that was produced by someone else. The section directly references Fabbrini and cites him inline. This is not plagiarism. Marskell (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I am NOT responsible for any plagiarism on this article. Can an admin remove those false accusations against me above? Colin4C (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The "accusation" is that you removed the source, which is exactly what you did, as the diff shows. As for the definition of plagiarism, putting a source in the references is not enough to justify copying text directly into the article. That text is sufficiently similar to the source that it needs to be explicitly quoted if it is to remain. Life.temp (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Could an admin remove these false accusations? They are contrary to this policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith Colin4C (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If it is literally word-for-word then simply add quotation marks. If it is a close paraphrase then there is no problem—the author is directly attributed in the sentence and in the citation. Perfectly normal.
As for the "Two authors..." bit being continually reverted to, the edit yesterday should have made clear that AA has been linked to the degeneracy idea since at least 1978 and that research on the topic dates to at least 1944. Ceaser and Roger are neither the first to discuss the thesis nor the only people to link it to AA. The section now has six secondary sources and two primary; it's as well cited as just about any section I've added to Wikipedia. Marskell (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I responded to your comment about the Degeneracy Thesis in the section about the Degeneracy Thesis in Talk. Life.temp (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Marskell, I was referencing that it didnt have the citation, at the time, so of course it was plagerism.¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 00:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It is plagiarism even with the source, since the words are not clearly attributed to the source. For the same reason, it is a violation of neutrality, since it is stating a political intepretation in Wikipedia's narrative voice. Life.temp (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further Reading

Just to say that I recommend William Manchester's 'The Glory and the Dream: A Narrative History of America 1932-1972' (1975). This book charts in exhaustive detail America's rise to be a global superpower and the consequent anti-American reaction across the world. There is a particularly scary bit about how Nixon was almost lynched by an Anti-American mob in Caracas, Venuezuela. A long read at 1397 pages but very absorbing, especially about the tragedy of Vietnam which dominates the final chapters. Colin4C (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read it, so I cant say for sure. Just remember to cite it in a "non-biased-non-pro-anyone-plus-nuetral-stance" way. Hehe. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 00:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to say that I really felt for that Nixon guy getting a hot reception in Caracas. I think Bush should follow his example and do an open-top motorcade drive round Baghdad so that he can literally 'feel the love' of people he has 'liberated'. Colin4C (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Basic Problems

I've reverted Colin's last edit, as it continued the tradition of making this article into a laundry list of everything anyone has ever suggested calling anti-American. It also continued the tradition of using Wikipedia to advance the the use of this term as propaganda. Calling something anti-American is an interpretation, and cannot be done by Wikiepdia/editors. We can only discuss the fact that some choice, notable experts have voiced such an opinion, not advance the opinion ourselves. Life.temp (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not 'continued the tradition of making this article into a laundry list of everything anyone has ever suggested calling anti-American'. I have not 'continued the tradition of using Wikipedia to advance the the use of this term as propaganda'. All my edits are strictly in accordance with wikipedia policy and guidelines. Colin4C (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In Latin America, anti-American sentiment has deep roots dating back to the 1830s and the Texas Revolution in which that province seceded from Mexico and was incorporated within the USA.[79]Mexican anti-American sentiment was further inflamed by the 1846-1848 Mexican-American War, in which Mexico lost almost half of its territory to the US.[80][81] Such interventions from the USA prompted a later ruler of Mexico, Porfirio Diaz, to coin the famous lament "Poor Mexico, so far from God, and so close to the United States"[82]. In the rest of South America the 1855 American intervention in Nicaragua and the Spanish-American War of 1898 - which turned Cuba into a virtual dependency of the United States also prompted hatred of America.[83]Perceived racist attitudes of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants of the north towards the populations of South America also caused resentment.[84] In the twentieth century American support for the 1954 coup in Guatemala against Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, the United States embargo against Cuba, the 1964 Brazilian coup d'état, Operation Condor, the 1973 Chilean coup d'état, the Salvadoran Civil War, the support of the Contras and the refusal to extradite a terrorist, continued to fueled anti-Americanism in the region.[85][86][87]Similarly, U.S. support for dictators such as Augusto Pinochet, Anastasio Somoza, Alfredo Stroessner has influenced regional attitudes.[88]Fidel Castro the revolutionary leader of Cuba has throughout his career tried to co-ordinate long standing South American resentments against the USA through military and propagandist means.[89][90] The perceived failures of the neo-liberal reforms of the 1980s and the 1990s intensified opposition to the Washington consensus,[91] leading to a resurgence in support for Pan-Americanism, support for popular movements in the region, the nationalization of key industries and centralization of government.[92]America's tightening of the economic embargo on Cuba in 1996 and 2004 also caused resentment among South American leaders and has prompted them to use the Madrid based Iberian Summit as a meeting place rather than the American dominated OAS.[93]One of the most vocal of these leaders has been Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, who is known for his strong opposition towards the American government, particularly George W. Bush, driving him to address him in many ways; referring to him as "the devil" before the United Nations.[94]He has clearly stated his intent to use Venezuela's oil resources as a card "against the toughest country in the world, the United States."[95]

The bold text above is blatant violation of neutrality policies. All of it presents an opinion as fact, and pushes the political interpretations of its sources. The parts that aren't blatant violations of neutrality are trivial, e.g the statement that US policy "influenced" regional attitudes.Life.temp (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My edits are in accordance with wikipedia policies and guidelines. Colin4C (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bush family are anti-American

C.I.A. is a German Clandestine Infiltration Force.

Military Intelligence needs to come from the U.S. Department of Defense not the Central Intelligence Agency, it doesn't say anywhere in the U.S. Consitution that power is vested with the C.I.A. and it shouldn't. Central Intelligence Agency is merely a power extension of the Bush family, World Development is a C.I.A. mass extermination program. Iraq & Afghanistan war are based upon false premises, the War on terror is based upon discrimination of social exclussion, combating poverty, scientific & technological advance over the enemy.

Terrorism victimised Judaism & Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phalanxpursos (talk • contribs) 00:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)