Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Americanism in various countries

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Feel free to recreate with sources — four sources is not nearly enough for such a lenghty article, and it has been over a year now since it has been authored. El_C 09:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Americanism in various countries

Filled with original research and completely devoid of sources or references. The topic is certainly encyclopedic, and I have no objections to an article on this subject, but the article as it stands todays is simply not acceptable. My fond hope is that this article will get cleaned up sufficiently; I will happily change my opinion to "keep" were that to occur. EngineerScotty 18:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete This article is deeply confused, comprises almost entirely of original research and is basically unsalvagable. Requests have been issued on the talk page for clarification and improvement for some time - to no avail. I can't see a way out of this other than to delete. Just to reiterate one of the main problems - objecting to a certain policy or act by the US government does not make it "anti-Americanism". The expression itself is greatly disputed and this isn't explained on the article at all, certain objections to policy are just assumed to be "anti-Americanism". See this page: Opposition to Fidel Castro, Note that it isn't "Anti-Cubanism". Anyway, see this [1] for further discussion on the deletion. I also note that there have been calls to delete this article as nonsense on the talk page dating back to January 2006. --Zleitzen 18:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Vague and weepy, this article is composed of much original research. It would be difficult to make an article on this topic fit NPOV guidelines, (both sensationalism and geographical/national bias are major issues) and nearly impossible using the current one as source material. If kept, please edit with a chainsaw.--65.16.61.35 18:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - there are a few sources, and the topic is encyclopaedic enough. That said, I'm not sure a chainsaw is sufficient for the editing it needs - does anyone have some sort of particle weapon? WilyD 19:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure, I do. I've just deployed it.  :) --EngineerScotty 19:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • There is a baby in here, thus I'm suggesting boiling may not be the best way to get rid of the bathwater. WilyD 20:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest keep - this article has a lot of sourcing, some good images and some very informative information, this article is needed to supplement the anti-americanism article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogsprog (talk • contribs)
  • This article has four sourced statements, and only one that refers to "anti-Americanism", by Bernard-Henri Levy. And his use of the vague term is not expanded at all in the article. The basis of the article is just wrong and POV from the start, tarring dissent, protest and objection to certain policies of a particular US government with the broad brush of "anti-Americanism" is original research. --Zleitzen 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ill-defined and unencyclopedic. Anything of use could be moved to the anti-Americanism article.--Peta 01:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • So that would be a merge vote? Kappa 06:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: first of all, Bernard-Henri Lecy does not own the rights to the phrase "anti-Americanism", he only thinks he does. Secondly, I think that nominating an article which is poorly written and sourced in spite of the fact that you believe that the subject is notable and that it is not inherently POV is not what AfD is for. It may be the case that many articles are cleaned up when they come to AfD, but if people start AfDing things just to clean them up, we will have an even worse case of AfD-bloat than we already do. Hornplease 05:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If they had Wikipedia:Articles for Probation or similar (wherein an article gets put on an "interested editors shall clean this up or the article shall die" list), I would have gone there instead. My nearest approximation to that policy is the aformentioned AfD threat posted on the talk page quite some time back; virtually no improvements to the article have occurred since then. AfD was only used as a last resort. With regard to {{sofixit}}; I considered ways to do so, but my improvements would have been carried out with an axe. Given the controversial and emotional nature of the subject, I figured that a wider forum to discuss the article was more appropriate. --EngineerScotty 15:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • If you want to bust out the axe, go wild. If someone gives you problems, consider Request for Comment - there are all kinds of resources for dealing with the flaws in this article, but AfD ain't one. WilyD 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • If the AfD concludes without a consensus (which is what looks likely), or with a consensus for other than delete, I'll certainly do.  :) --EngineerScotty 17:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the baby, remove the bathwater with the "edit" button, you don't need a particle weapon. Kappa 06:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem is that people have been calling for a clean up since 2005 and this hasn't happened. The page has just got even worse. I don't believe the concept of the page itself salvagable. It's a fallacy that can only lead to unencyclopedic content. The Bathwater stinks because the baby was stillborn!--Zleitzen 13:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, the great thing about Wikipedia is that it's an encyclopaedia anyone can edit. If someone wants something cleaned, they can clean it. This article needs cleaning is not a criterion for deletion. Articles shouldn't be brought to AfD just because they're dirty. WilyD 14:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment No, no. I mean that the title of the article itself is flawed - it can only create a page like this. Am I not making myself clear here? The concept of "Anti-Americanism in various countries" itself is a fallacy. I guarantee that this page is unworkable.--Zleitzen 19:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
        • You've made that point clear there, but it's false on the face of it. There are stacks of great articles that are way harder to write than this. To be frank, writing this article and doing a half-decent job of it should be easier than pissing in the shower. It'd be foolish to bet it's unworkable even if you were offered dollars to dimes. It's an encyclopaedic topic that should (I haven't really looked) have tons of great references all over the flippin' place. WilyD 04:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
          • You'd find it harder than you think to write this article. The title would need to change for a start. To label an act "anti-American" is almost invariably a POV accusation unproved and likely disputed by the subject. So it would need to be "allegations of anti-Americanism" for starters. It is an inherently subjective and POV term see:[2] which states "it only demeans things further to pre-stigmatise all debate with the mark of "anti-American". I think Chomsky had it right when he said "A term like “anti-American” is “a pretty standard propaganda triumph, actually. Like, go to Italy and try using the word ‘anti-Italianism,’ call somebody there ‘anti-Italian’ and just see what happens—they’d crack up in ridicule. But here [in the US] those totalitarian values really do mean something to people….” Note that he's talking about the terms use in the US. There is scant evidence of the term having any currency outside the US. The occasional quote here and there in the UK, our Bernard Henri Levy quote and so on. That's about it. Beyond that nothing. To use sources in the US labelling sentiments of other nations "anti-American" as fact is inherently POV, unencyclopedic and potentially offensive. --Zleitzen 08:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
            • This simply isn't true. Anti-American may be a POV-accusation (although in many cases, I'm sure it's undisputed) - but as long as its sourced, the article isn't POV. This kind of thing is already well debated in a thousand other articles that have the same difficulties. Renaming to allegations is unneeded - see WP:NAME for instance, one how to name articles. It's encyclopaedic as shit. There are thousands of articles with POV content or titles that still pass WP:NPOV, see Armenian Genocide. And potentially offensive is completely irrelevent. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a hugWilyD 12:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
              • You say that as long as its sourced, the article isn't POV. Sourced to what? Give examples. And you say that "potentially offensive" is irrelevant. How about an article that states an allegation as fact and uses original research to assert this. That is potentially offensive and very relevant. I certainly know about WP:NAME, I've named enough articles in my time, and been involved in enough articles of this nature to know how to deal with this kind of issue. Hence my calls for deletion.--Zleitzen 12:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
              • If this article survives, what'll happen is this. I'll strip the article down to the one verifiable source - Bernard Henri Levy, and his allegation of "anti-Americanism" in France. And then, in time, other users will come along with their original research again, Spain is "anti-American" because of 2+2, Brazil is "anti-American" because of 2+2 etc. Without any reference to the term itself. It's an invite to engage in original research. And the article will be back where it is now. I challenge anyone to create a NPOV page on "Anti-Americanism in various countries" given that the title itself implies it is a fact. Not a claim made by partisans.--Zleitzen 12:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic, per EngineerScotty. Remove original research, do not delete. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Very shallow content, maybe good for TV. The whole topic cannot be condensed into single article. Pavel Vozenilek 19:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you expand upon this a little? Are you suggesting that "large topics" shouldn't have articles, contrary to WP:SUMMARY? Would you advocate the deletion of an article like War because it's too broad? WilyD 19:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per complete lack of on-point WP:RS, therefore WP:OR by default, encyclopedic or not. You can't just edit out the OR if there are no sources, i.e. nothing but OR. Sandstein 21:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Moving Content, in the style of news, is not encyclopedic. Especially actual events (not being hstorically verifyable events). W not a webhosting provider. User:Yy-bo 22:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. this lack sources, and conflicts with WP:NOR. We already have Anti-Americanism, and any properly sourced material can go there. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 14:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. An encylopedia should be discussing the term anti-Americanism, the disputes surrounding it etc. And we do that in the Anti-Americanism article. We shouldn't be taking that term, applying our own definition of it and then listing a whole load of incidents that we believe are "anti-American". That is the definition of original research. 99% of the material on this page is exactly that. --Zleitzen 15:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the reason this article was created was to explain anti-americanism in individual countries, to save anti-americanism for explanation of the term in general, there may be some original research, but it seems that zleitzen doesn't like this article as it lists actual examples of anti americanism, I suspect he is "anti-anti-americanism!" --Frogsprog 15:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What examples of "anti-Americanism" are there in the article now? There's only one. Take Cuba, I see objections to US policy on the page but no "anti-Americanism". I should know about that topic at least, I wrote the Cuba-United States relations article in full. By the way, you've now voted twice. (vote subsequently removed) --Zleitzen 16:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

oh sorry i meant to reply to the last ---Frogsprog 16:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (vote subsequently removed)

• Keep or merge to Anti-Americanism, although I think it's too long to merge. The article is certainly not perfect, but that's not grounds for deletion. Sources can be added where necessary. PizzaMargherita 17:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Where would these sources come from, and what kind of things would they say?--Zleitzen 17:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It took me 2 minutes to find this: "Yongsan ("Dragon Hill") [is] a symbol of foreign occupation for many Koreans. Consequently, the base is a frequent site of anti-American protests. South Korean riot police are stationed permanently outside the base." PizzaMargherita 18:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

(sorry about the lengthy response) OK, so that is the Washington Post, obviously a US source, describing a protest as "anti-American". That's an individual interpretation of another groups actions. If you were to ask the protesting Koreans about their protest I imagine they wouldn't tell you it was "anti-American", they'd tell you about foreign occupation and the symbolism of the hill. If they did claim that yes, "We are doing this because we are anti-American", then fair enough. But they're not.

Let me give you a hypothetical example of the problem here. We have a page called Evil on wikipedia, some Christians believe that abortion is evil. Do we have a page called Evil in various countries listing the various countries where abortion is practiced? No. Because evil is an inherently subjective and disputed term and to do so would be to assume that abortion was "evil". We could source our hypothetical page with endless sources from Christian groups, but it still wouldn't help. "Anti-Americanism" is exactly the same thing, it is an inherently subjective observation made by outsiders.

There is no evidence that the protest in Korea was "anti-American" - but the Washington Post applies that term to it. We're not the Washington Post - we're neutral, simply reporting uses of the term. Therefore we can't place it on this page stating "the base is a frequent site of anti-American protests" and stay within NPOV. We'd have to say something along the lines of "the protests at Yongsan have been cited by the Washington Post as evidence of anti-Americanism". Essentially an allegation against the protestors. That is why the title of this page is wrong from the start, because it already assumes that such actions are "anti-American" and adopts the voice of outlets such as the Washington Post, not the voices of the subjects themselves (in this case the protestors).

I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear here, but the bottom line is some people who protest US foreign policy object to it being labelled anti-Americanism. The term is disputed and not NPOV.--Zleitzen 18:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The term is overloaded; meaning both "against the policies of the US" and "against the US itself". That is one issue with the title. Many US administrations, including (especially!) the current one, eagerly promote this little bit of obfuscation--this enables them to label domestic critics as disloyal (if not outright traitorous) and foreign critics as hostile (if not outright enemies). If the article is to be kept and retain "Anti-American" in the title, it ought to discuss--at the top--the different meanings of the term, and who uses them and why. With sources, obviously. --EngineerScotty 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The idea in this case is to portray the protests are part of some kind of irrational "anti-American" phenomenon. Without needing to discuss the actual particular grievances of the protestors themselves. In a way it is a smear job and is highly disputable. --Zleitzen 02:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You are making yourself quite clear, but you seem to deny that the Washington Post (the one resource I found in 2 minutes) is a reliable source—which "sources from Christian groups" would probably be not, by the way. You, as an editor, are not in a position to question reliable sources. It would be perfectly acceptable to write "the base is a frequent site of anti-American protests" and reference the article. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. PizzaMargherita 20:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Washington Post doesn't own the term. As the Guardian, Noam Chomsky and even our own article Anti-American argues. It's a subjective label, and the definition is not universally agreed. It is actually POV for us to write "the base is a frequent site of anti-American protests", because it is an allegation by the Washington Post, not a universally agreed truism. We are not the Washington Post.--Zleitzen 02:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

As an additional example, the Washington Post describes Iran as "the senior partner of this axis of evil." here [3]. Should we should add the sentence "Iran is the senior partner of an axis of evil" to various pages and reference the article? Based on your reliable source criteria? It would reach your threshold for inclusion as verifiable. --Zleitzen 03:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not my criterion, it's Wikipedia's. And there is a difference between an op-ed and a news report. PizzaMargherita 16:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

News reports can biased, you know. What you quote isn't wikipedia's criterion. If it was, we could write "the iraq war was an unpopular war"[4] (yahoo news), [5](cnn), "Fascism is the new buzzword for republicans" [6](cnn) etc etc. A subjective and disputed term cannot be applied as fact without attribution no matter who uses it. Likewise the word "terrorist" cannot be used without attributing who is making the claim - see the Osama Bin Laden page which at no point describes him as "a terrorist" though he is described in that fashion in every newspaper without fail. Our article follows that policy for a reason, we are not parroting newspapers, we're an encylopedia. So likewise we can't call our Korean's "anti-American" without attributing who has made the allegation. That is wikipedia policy.--Zleitzen 23:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be careful there with that example. Those words are actually in an op-ed written by Charles Krauthammer, a well-known right-wing (and staunchly pro-Israel) political commentator, one who routinely rattles the sabre for U.S.. military action in the Islamic world, and is openly hostile to Iran. While Krauthammer is entitled to his views, it would be incorrect to attribute them to the Washington Post simply because they ran an editorial he wrote; it is common practice for newspapers (at least in the US) to publish outside editorials representing a wide variety of viewpoints. If the passage were in an unsigned editorial penned by the Post's editorial staff, or in a news item published by the paper, that would be a different matter. --EngineerScotty 03:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

See reply above.--Zleitzen 23:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It is interesting to know the difference between anti-Americanism in different countries. Russian and French anti-Americanism is a reflection of their loss of status. Arab anti-Americanism is more to do with foreign policy. Australian anti-Americanism is really a struggle to appear different. And the British want the world to write '-re' not '-er'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kransky (talk • contribs) .
  • "Australian anti-Americansm" is a struggle to appear different? Y'got a source for that, mate?  :) --EngineerScotty 17:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC) (who isn't Australian, by the way...)
• Delete per nom. Hopelessly and unrecoverably POV. A sandbox for opinion. Morton devonshire 21:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral For now researching this one but leaning to Delete Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete POV, and not notable sorry but I researched this one and didn't find much. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 07:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Stubbify to the referenced points only then build back up using referenced statements only. Anti-Americanism is a fairly well estabished article that has been happily around for three years detailing a real sentiment. This article aims to explore how that sentiment is expressed around the world, and that's a good goal. However the fact an article of this length only appears to have six references (yes, I tried to count them) worries me. All non-referenced information should be removed, and the article should then be built again based upon solid references. The issue of NPOV becomes moot once we properly reference these events and any criticism of them, and follow best practice when writing the article. It should be noted that this will be almost the same as deleting, given the significant reduction in article size LinaMishima 23:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Anti-Americanism discusses the term. And the disputes surrounding the term. This page ignores those disputes and attempts to enforce the term as a neutral given, essentially supporting a (largely US) media claim that people protesting particular US policies is a form of "anti-americanism". It does this immediately via the title. It is inherently unencyclopedic and POV.--Zleitzen 23:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote-comment LinaMishima 00:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as unreferenced material We are free to remove unreferenced material from articles without any discussion, ahnks to WP:VERIFY. Most of the references I noted earlier did not actually support the article itself, and so instead we would be left with "In the Second World War hundreds of thousands of American troops were stationed in Australia, introducing new products and ideas to the isolated British dominion. The relatively more affluent and carefree nature ('Over-sexed, over-paid and over here') of the Americans jarred with the sensibilities of some Australians[1]. There were some demonstrations marking President Bush's state visit to Britain, although The Guardian[2] reported that the vast majority of British people supported the visit." (external links not copied, but do support). Whilst Anti-American is clearly a real, supported and definable term, this article is actually quite laughably under-referenced. Remove as per the powers of WP:VERIFY: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed". This is not to say however that I object to the article's concept - just do it right, with references LinaMishima 00:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • additional Whilst deleting for a lack of references is a bad thing if the article or offending content is new, the talk page gained a comment on the 24 December 2005 (UTC) about this, when the {{OR}} tag was added. I'm going to contact the editor that appears to be the original author to let him know about the problems with the article. He'll still have a few days, or could userfy and fix Original author was an IP user now inactive from that IP, and there has been no persistant long-term editors over the history of the article LinaMishima 00:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-encyclopedic. Delete the cruft now and avoid the rush later.--Tbeatty 07:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep OneGuy 16:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Crockspot 17:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; perhaps merge anything salvageable into Anti-Americanism.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (no I am not Anti-American). The article is informative, and with some references, might become a good article. utcursch | talk 08:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I apologize in advance, but I fail to see how unsourced, absurd, sweeping generalizations are informative.--65.16.61.35 15:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and add references, encyclopedic. --Vsion 05:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody can add references. That is because the material is almost entirely made up of generalizations by random editors as the anon user above has noted. All that random material has to go leaving us with just one sourced comment by a Frenchman. And even that is a controversial allegation, not a statement of fact.--Zleitzen 15:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Fantastic article, very relevant. Makes an interesting read and contains good references. Keep it! SDas 02:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.