Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

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)

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 [1], 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. [2] 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)

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)

What counts as your edits is irrelevant. The point is to get rid of the policy violations, wherever they occur. It is a policy violation for Wikipedia to go around saying what is anti-American and what is not. Life.temp (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Plagiarism

The article contains this text: [3]

Fabbrini (2004) reports the American invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003 brought anti-Americanism to the surface of public debate in Europe. The reaction to U.S. unilateralism has been nourished by a complex of fears, two in particular: the presumed economic and cultural Americanization of Europe and the Americanization of the European political process.[48] The overwhelming global power acquired by the United States in the post-Cold War era and the unilateral exercise of that power, especially after 9/11 attacks September 11, 2001 fed the anti-American sentiment contributing to its most militant manifestation.

it is sourced to this abstract of an aticle by Fabrini: [4]

The American invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003 brought to the surface of public debate among European elites a robust anti-Americanism. The reaction to US unilateralism has been nourished by a complex of fears. Two in particular. The first fear has to do with the presumed economic and cultural Americanization of Europe. The second fear with the Americanization of the European political process. Both fears seem unjustified to a closer logical and empirical scrutiny. However, the overwhelming global power acquired by the US in the post Cold War era, and the unilateral exercise of that power especially after September 11, 2001, fed the anti-American sentiment contributing to its most militant manifestation.

Is the Wikipedia version plagiarized from the original? See the previous discussion, here: Talk:Anti-Americanism#Plagiarism. 10:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• ...

Yes. Putting a source in the references is not enough to justify copying text directly into the article. A passage that is 90% copy/pasted from another source needs to be clearly and explicitly quoted. (For the same reason, the text as it stands is a violation of neutrality, since it is stating a political intepretation in Wikipedia's narrative voice.) Life.temp (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Lifetemp, you found a problem. Why don't you rewrite it so it isn't plagearized and source it properly? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 11:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So far, you and I are the only ones who think (do you?) it's plagiarism. (Also, there are two editors who immediately revert any edit I make, no matter how minor.) Life.temp (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I said it was plagerism as well... Tsk, tsk, is this problem fixed or are we still debating it? ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 20:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The Monster; Dickens; Latin America: Material Added without Consensus

Colin: Please stop reverting to text you added, after it has been undone. You need to discuss and reach consensus. Other than some brief--and mostly negative--discusion of the monster movie [5], you haven't discussed any of this material. The objections have been made repeatedly: the article already has an undue weight problem; it isn't neutral for Wikipedia to call things anti-American; randomly cherry-picking books, movies, and songs that some reviewer somewhere has suggested are anti-American ignores standards for notability. Please discuss. You are violating this guideline [6]...

1. Boldly make the desired change to the page.

2. Wait until someone reverts your change or makes another substantial edit. DO NOT revert this change!

3. If a disagreement arises, gracefully back down a bit, and explain and discuss your reasoning with the reverter and consider their different views too (don't go for discussion with too many people at once). Once you reach agreement, start the cycle again by making the agreed change.

Please make an effort. Life.temp (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Who makes the most effort, he who writes a book or he who tears out the pages? Colin4C (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not an explanation of your edits. Try again. Life.temp (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please answer my question. Colin4C (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Markovits quote?

Mario: what is the purpose of this quote in the discussion of post Cold War changes: "By cultivating an anti-American position, Europe feigns membership in a global opposition of the downtrodden by America." It seems more like opinion and doesn't seem to have a place in the article, to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.162.20.99 (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The Decline and Fall of Bsharvy: Part 26

To all those of you here who enjoyed his edits we regret to inform you that User:Life.temp was a sock-puppet of User:Bsharvy all the time. But, don't worry, I guess he'll be back here under a new identity in a day or two...Colin4C (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Be more optimistic than that. Once someone gets identified and known to the community, more eyes start watching the matter and it becomes less and less fun for them. They get blocked faster, cause less disruption, etc. I recommend filing a checkuser request the next time an account behaves like that person. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 19:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well...I got several warnings from the admins for raising suspicions that Life.temp was Bsharvy:

"Your continued accusations and insinuations against Life.temp of being a sock of Bsharvy such as this one are without merit. This matter has been finalised here and you are now in danger of being blocked for not assuming good faith and continually harassing another editor. Please stop."

A previous editor here (Igor) was indeed blocked and banned by the admins from the wikipedia for trying to prove the very same. The admins in their wisdom thought that poor Life.temp was being traduced and harassed by editors here, refused to authorise a checkuser request and believed everything he said: up to and including banning another editor on his say-so. Read this and weep: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy (2nd). Colin4C (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that it's checkuser-confirmed that matter changes. I've contacted the blocking admin re: Igor's indef. There's been a substantial problem here and it's getting addressed now. Please give me a heads up if the problem resumes. Best, Durova^Charge! 21:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

While I understand that a third party needs to come to these things with AGF for all, I must second Colin's frustration. He and I were dreadful assholes for pointing out the obvious: that the account was a clear as day sock. Jenochman, for reasons I don't understand, declined the first checkuser.

Anyhow, so long Life.temp. Thank God. Marskell (talk) 07:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

S-Protected

Bsharvy showed up as an anon today to add a neutrality tag. Given the trouble the sock has caused I thought it best to s-protect this for a decent period (30 days) to let things peter out. We shouldn't need to worry about anon crap.

Small note: I think we should stick with Bsharvy when referring to the sock to keep things straight. That was the original account name. Marskell (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

On Bsharvy's 'Life.temp' alternate identity page he has just commented that "It's ridiculously easy for me to change IP's, and create new accounts, even when blocked." Maybe he hopes to be the new Lon Chaney who was described as "the man with a thousand faces". Colin4C (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's very common for users who don't get their way to create sockpuppets or to keep changing IPs. It just goes to show that he lacks the maturity to edit Wikipedia. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Translations

His vandalism aside, Life Temp. (aka Bsharvy) did make one good point. As this is the English wikipedia, we have a strong Western bias and while we can label some of the English speaking countries anti-American, due to news and other articles. Life Temp.'s point was that we should not label other countries (ie, Columbia/Japan/etc) Anti-American as we do not know if they themselves see their country as being or having Anti-Americanism.

My point being, there are 15 other languages that this article is written in. Either they, or the sources they use could benefit this article by providing more neutral information about their country's view on Anti-Amerticanism. Iciac (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you Bsharvy? I am not accusing, just asking. Just so we have everything on record. Colin4C (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, not everyone who edits this page are American or know English as their first language, and I can assure you that a large amount of English-speaking countries do not like the United States any more than another country. I see no bias. By the way, Colin, I quoated you on my apge, hope you don't mind (it was awhile ago). ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 20:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not Bsharvy, though I did occasionally think he was hard done by (I've been watching the talk page for a few months). And yes, I have no doubt that many English speaking or no countries dislike America. However, I believe that citations from that a (eg)French newspaper talking about Anti-Americanism in France, would be more neutral than an American/ Australian/etc newspaper talking about growing AA in France. It could also better describe how the country describes their own belief in Anti-Americanism, which I think was one of Bsharvy's major points (That wikipedia should not label a country Anti-American if they themselves do not see themselves as that). Iciac (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your choice of word 'labelling' is interesting. Are you assuming that to call someone anti-American is derogatory? Depending on the people using it it could equally be a term of approbation and the contrary sentiment 'pro-Americanism' be seen as derogatory. E.g. in Britain Tony Blair got a lot of flak for seeming to be too pro-American. I think we should treat 'anti-Americanism' as a descriptive term for acts and words which are anti (literally 'against') the Americans, eg declaring war on America (Hitler, Osama), burning the American flag, shouting out "Death to America!" in a loud voice etc etc. These acts and words are primae facie 'anti-American'. The issue, often raised, of whether they are 'justified' are 'unjustified' is not one wikipedia editors are able to cope with, I feel, as different people have different opinions on what is 'justified' and 'unjustified'. Wikipedia editors are not the arbiters of what is right and and what is wrong IMHO. Colin4C (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

IronCrow - glad you have quoted my wise words on your User Page. If only Bsharvy had listened to them he might not be in the Sin Bin now...(that's the village of Sin Bin on the outskirts of Seoul - a good place to hide from Agent Yellow attacks...so I'm told...). Colin4C (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Calling something "anti-American" is often derogatory, as this article has at various times asserted. This article is in the "Discrimination" category, so the implication is clear. That doesn't mean it's an absolute, but there is a strong implication. Defining it as "against" American is vague. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.153.53.2 (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Greek word 'Anti' literally means 'Against'. Whether it is derogatory or not depends on how you value what it is appended to. For instance would you class Anti-Nazism and Anti-slavery as forms of discrimination? Colin4C (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's derogatory depends on its common useage. If something's "anti-American" the suggestion is that it's not based in reason. The article itself says so, and it is in Wikipedia's "discrimination" category. It's not an absolute, but it's a common implication. Most of the examples of anti-Americanism in this article don't include any rational discourse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.153.53.2 (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, when such views as Slavery and Nazism were common place, Anti-Slavery and Anti-Nazism would have been considered derogatory, possibly discriminatory. Weren't anti-Nazis placed in concentration camps? The point is that generally, in Western media the US is seen in a postive fashion. Therefore something "anti-American" is seen in a derogative fashion. However, in countries or minorities that believe that anti-Americanism is a good thing (opposite to pro-american as you mentioned earlier) it is seen in a positive light. The problem is that most of the sources used are from Western observers, and thus the anti-Americanism is seen negatively. To answer you're early question: whether I believe anti-American is used only derogatorily - no, I personally describe myself as Anti-American in response to certain elements such as the war in Iraq, recent matters in Iran, and the unilateral views of the US. Though of course that's irrelevant. Iciac (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to add that Anti-slavery was often combined with Anti-Americanism. So Dickens: "Thus the stars wink upon the bloody stripes; and Liberty pulls down her cap upon her eyes, and owns oppression in its vilest aspect for her sister". Dickens was from the 'West' by the way. Europeans (such as Dickens) do not always support the United States, therefore you shouldn't confuse 'The West' with America. And if you are asserting that it is only Americans who see Dicken's remarks as anti-American you are wrong. The source I got them from was written by an Englishman. If you look closely you will see that the text of the article IS sourced to a variety of non-American voices: Mexican, Korean, French etc. I don't indeed see your point, unless your talk is just a softening-up operation for a new wave of mass deletions a-la-Bsharvy. Colin4C (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, sorry if I sounded a little bigotted. And no, this is not some softening up operation for Bsharvy. I deeply respect the work that has gone into this article. I also believe that some of the work done by Bsharvy has left a stronger article in its place, with the weakest and most predjudiced material removed. However, the two of you need to reach agreements more often, as I've seen in the last few months that ultimatums are generally the case. Part of this is due to Bsharvy rigidly sticking to the rules; and part of it is your refusal to discuss some of his points. Many times I've seen Bsharvy list his points in the talk, and you ignore them and make a comeback with a quote from literature (of which you have plenty apparently =P). The intention of the "translations" was to address one of Bsharvy's arguements that "wikipedia should not label people in a way that they describe themselves". My idea was that there are other languaged versions of this article with articles from that countries standpoint; and that he could use these to fix any labelling or POV problems. It was just a suggestion. No offences intended. Cheers Iciac (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Bsharvy did not stick to the wikipedia rules, he flouted them. He operated a series of sock puppets, expressly contrary to the wikipedia rules. Some of these sock-puppets we suspected beforehand but there were others of which we were completely unaware of until they were revealed a couple of weeks ago such as User:Chudov and User:Nosuperpower. Bsharvy has boasted how easy it is for him to create sock-puppets and I strongly suspect that he will reappear here in one guise or another. Only two days ago Bsharvy said this on his Life.temp sock page: "In any case, why bother begging inscrutable admins for unblocks when I can just create new accounts?". Colin4C (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I read that comment too, I also read a few comments by other users giving evidence that the Rachel63 account (his first sock?) may not have been his sock. In any case, if he's just going to reappear anyway, why not work with him instead of against him. Address his arguments directly and see if you can reach consensus with him. The other alternative is to just continue what you have been for the last 3 months and continue the Life.Temp saga where both of you are at loggerheads with one-another and no actual improvement is made. Again, no offence intended. Cheers Iciac (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Bsharvy was trying to destroy the article not improve it. He wanted it deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Americanism. And due to his false testimony another editor here, Igor, was blocked and banned from the wikipedia and I was subjected to threats of being banned for raising the question as to his identity. And since you ask, I do take offence at what you say. Bsharvy was a destructive pest and had nothing of value to say about this article. If he turns up again I will report him to the admins. Colin4C (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

North American attitudes

Why does this section not exist? It looks like almost every area is covered except for this one. This would almost seem like the primary editors of this article assumed there was no anti-american sentiment within Canada/America (Mexico seems covered under Latin America). And trust me, in Canada making fun of Americans is something of a sport amongst us. And I'm sure there's quite a few self-hating Americans (As there are self-haters everywhere), so why no NA article? 70.70.97.117 (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add such material...Colin4C (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Same with the Australians sadly. There used to be a section, but it was removed due to percieved biases and sourcing. Be free to add anything however, the article really need some information on those areas. Iciac (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I would, but as you can guess from the fact I lack a username, I'm not very good at this. I'd rather someone read my suggestions and make a decent addition to the article then have the section deleted because I didn't do it properly. (Much like the ill-fated Australia section). Of course I realise that every country can't have it's own section. I mean, it's the US we're talking about here. Not exactly a much beloved country right now, or even liked. However, as Canada is the US's closest ally in many respects I think we're worth mentioning, eh? And also of course the Anti-US Americans themselves.70.70.97.117 (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea - if you wanted to, you could use the discussion page to write it. That way, no-one will delete it, and we'll be able to give you feedback as you write it. Iciac (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As an American, I think this is a great idea. Editing an article isn't much harder than what you've already done to write your comments here. Just cruise around and hit the edit page to see how certain effects are created. For instance, if you write [[Canada]] it will create a "Wikilink" that looks like this Canada. It's just that easy, and learning how to add sources is as easy as looking at any featured article and seeing how it's done there. Explore and be bold! 68.5.138.151 (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs to be clarified. It article should try to explain why people feel the anti Americanism. this is, what people are against to. people aren't anti-american just because "yes". Everyone has it's own reasons. the main reasons should figure in the article. Like the war against Iraq, echelon, cia flights, nuclear weapons, Vietnam war, racism etc etc etc. it should be a list or something like that. or a section that explains the source of anti-Americanism. Although in my opinion it's a very good article I think it could be improved a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by - - - (talk • contribs) 14:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

- - -: There's a fine line between stating that someone is anti-American, and giving valid reasons why. It's been tried before and systematically deleted/cockblocked because Wikipedia is primarily an American website. Not that all Americans immediately resort to covering their ears and humming loudly when you critique them, but there are enough.
And as for making the section myself, see above reasons. The US is one of the most disliked nations in the world atm, but I doubt this aticle will ever be allowed to show it. 70.70.97.117 (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

ga nomination

anyone think this is up for a Good article nomination? - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 08:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No way. This article is really biased culturally and not at all neutral. You have a real problenm when Americans rape a child and people object and you call that anti-american. Rachel63 (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article is a long ways from being a GA. However, I disagree with your characterization above. In Anti-Americanism#East_Asia, the article speaks of "high-profile crimes committed by U.S. servicemembers", citing the child-rape in Okinawa as one example. The article says that such "high-profile crimes committed by U.S. servicemembers" have aggravated anti-Americanism—implying (I infer) the point that it is a bit excessive to impute responsibility for a criminal action by one individual (even a member of the U.S. military) to the U.S. government and to every individual who holds U.S. nationality. The article does not, as you say above, claim that "... when Americans rape a child and people object and you call that anti-american". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? If we're not calling it anti-American, why is it in this article? Rachel63 (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The reasoning is that the Okinawa incident sparked a huge amount of anti-Americanism in Japan. Since the occupation (which has continued on some level since the end of WW2) of Japan by the USA, the Japanese have objected to this. The fact that initially in the investigation of the incident, the offender had extraterritorial defence increased this tension. I quote from the 1995 Okinawan rape incident article: "The outrage over the attack caused the largest anti-American demonstrations in Okinawa since the treaty was signed in 1960". In short, the fact that a US personal (whom are on Japanese soil against Japanese wishes) committed such a heinous crime was the issue, not merely the fact that the incident of a child being raped. The offence itself was not anti-Americanism, but the protests/reaction that followed was. If my argument makes sense, and you have no further issues with the neutrality of the article - could you please remove the POV banner yourself? Of course, if you have any further reasons; leave the banner there and state them here. Cheers Iciac (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

'Anti-Americanism' is a value neutral term. If the Americans do something wrong, e.g. swipe half of Mexico, then IMHO the Mexicans are justified in being Anti-American. 'Anti' means 'against' it does not mean 'unjustifiably against'. For instance calling somebody an 'Anti-Fascist' is generally an approbation, unless you are Heinrich Himmler...Colin4C (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The article says: "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." It is NOT value-neutral if it "reflects" a "prejudiced beliefe system." I think its obvious that sometimes this article is saying people have a prejudice against Americans, and I think it is really offensive to suggest protesting after a child GANG RAPE is because of prejudcie. Rachel63 (talk) 10:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I reworded it to "Whether sentiment hostile to the United States reflects reasoned evaluation of specific policies and administrations, or merely a prejudiced belief system, is a further complication." And while in parts of the article it suggests that anti-Americanism is a prejudice, in many instances anti-Americanism is merely a prejudice - the same as anti-Islam/Asia/femanist etc; however there are just as many (if not more) reasoned anti-Americans. In the case of the Okinawan rape, the anti-American protests were justified, and in my opinion presented as such in the article. Any other suggestions? Iciac (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

According to this article the protest was anti-American: http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9510/okinawa_protest/index.html. Are we going to deny that thousands of people protested against the Americans? The source says there was such a protest. The wikipedia does not allow original research denying what a source says. The reality is that not everybody in the world loves the Americans. The wikipedia should reflect this reality, no matter how unpalatable it is for Americans to hear. Colin4C (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Also the protest was not just because of the rape. According to the article "the protest was strengthened by years of resentment over the U.S. military presence on the tropical island." Colin4C (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity - was that reply directed towards me, or towards Rachel63? Iciac (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This whole discussion has nothing to do with the banner, in fact it just proves the point about the banner, because we are disputing whether the article is neutral. I don't know what CNN has to do with anything. Does Wikipedia say that if CNN says it, it must be a fact? Is that a policy??? Why don't you go find out what the JAPANESE news said about it. Don't you think it is a little BIASED to be using AMERICANS as an authority and what is anti-American????? Calling something anti-American is an OPINION. Rachel63 (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

We are not allowed to do original research on the wikipedia but use sources. The sources say that the demonstration was anti-American. By the way do you think that news-broadcasts by CNN showing people demonstrating against the Americans at Okinawa are faked? If so, please provide sources which prove that CNN fakes its news-reports. When CNN reported the moon-landing was that just an opinion? Maybe CNN faked that as well? Colin4C (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Youre disputing whether the article is neutral as part of your reason for taking off a banner that says people dispute whether the article is neutral. Rachel63 (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because we're trying to address any concerns you have about the neutrality. The banner is there to promote editors to improve the article by addressing any such concerns. If you don't state your concerns, then we must look at the article in question to see if we can find anything wrong with it. My point being, do you have any specific reasons for doubting the neutrality of the article? If not, we will remove the banner as you wouldn't seem to dispute it. P.S. I have already addressed the "Mostly US sources" in the "Translations" part of the talk page. For the record, there are many non-US sources in the article, though you are free to add more from other countries. Iciac (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You're not trying to "address any concerns you have about the neutrality", you're trying to prove you're right and I'm wrong. I already told you why I think the section isn't neutral, you just told me I'm wrong. Whatever. Really the whole thing is POV because "anti-American" is an opinion. Rachel63 (talk) 09:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That is just your individual anti-concensus original research opinion. Prove it. Colin4C (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but where did I ever state that I was right, and you were wrong? It may seem that way - but that's the way a discussion works, one side puts forward an argument (eg, your POV banner) and the other side attempts to refute it. This continues until an agreement can be reached (ie, consensus). I quote from wp:NPOVD: "Everyone can agree that marking an article as having an NPOV dispute is a temporary measure, and should be followed up by actual contributions to the article in order to put it in such a state that people agree that it is neutral." That is why we are asking for specific things to fix. For the POV thing - the article is describing a Point of View - one which has been discusssed by many third parties, historically and recently. NPOV stands for Neutral Point of View - not No Point of View. Yes, by saying "This is anti-Americanism" is just the opinion of the one who says it. However, this article merely records these opinions, and the how the opinions change by time/region etc. May I just say this - other than the first time it was put up, I have not removed the POV banner (however, I can't speak for Colin...). This is because I am willing to discuss whether the article is indeed neutral or not. Please then, could you also try and discuss it with us? Iciac (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a strange sense of deja-vu...I am removing the tag because retaining seems to indicate that there is a concensus that there is something wrong with this article. I.e. I believe it is the springboard for a tag-farm followed by mass deletions, followed by dragging long-standing editors through every complaints preocedure of the wikipedia in an attempt to intimidate them and drive them away...as in the glory days of Bsharvy. See User talk:Bsharvy for Rachel and Bsharvy gloating over how they drove editor Equazion away from this page: "At least Equazion isn't there any more!". Their aim, as before, is to destroy this article. No doubt, as before, the admins will give them every assistance and block and bar anybody who tries to defend the integrity of this article, like they did with Igor whose sole crime was to point out the obvious fact that Bsharvy had several sock-puppets and was trying to wreck this article. See: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy. Colin4C (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Iciac, you said you were trying to address my concerns, and now you admit you are attempting to "refute it." Well doesn't attempting to refute me mean you are saying your right and I'm wrong? A discussion doesn't HAVE to work that way you know, you can COMPROMISE and LEARN from EACH OTHER. It doesn't just work by REFUTING. I told you what I think we should do to make the article more neutral: don't call Japanese people anti-American just because they protest something Americans do. And you are wrong that the article "merely records these opinions" about things being anti-American. The article calls things anti-American. The very fist sentence of the Asia section is "In Japan and South Korea, much recent anti-Americanism has focused on the presence and behavior of American military personnel..." That's not a quote from a sourse, that's Wikipedia giving its opinion about Japanese and Korean politics.

And Colin, you are unfair. The banner doesn't say "there is a consensus that there is something wrong with this article" it says there is a DISPUTE. And I didn't even vote to delete the article, and said we should NOT delete the article, so you are being dishonest. Rachel63 (talk) 03:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I appologise, it was a bad choice of words on my part. I am actually trying to address your concerns - such as when you brought up "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." I reworded that sentence, as I agreed that it was biased. If I have time I will try and reword the Asia section later. Do you have any other concerns that, if addressed, would make the article neutral in your opinion? Colin - would it hurt to let the tag stay for a couple of days - some good may come of it. If it ends up causing a mass deletion ala. Bsharvy, you can always just revert it back to article as it stands now. Cheers Iciac (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the East Asia section - it doesn't actually call the Japanese people anti-American for protesting, rather that one reported cause of Anti-Americanism in Japan is the anger over US presence/Okinawan rape. I understand that this is only how I read it, and you may have a different opinion on it. Iciac (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does call them anti-American. I already quoted you the very first sentence. The whole article calls things anti-American even though that is an opinion. Also, it was Saber who was mass deleting, bsharvy was just trying to add warning banners. Rachel63 (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know Saber was the mass-deletor (I've mainly been watching the talk pages). The first sentence "In Japan and South Korea, much recent anti-Americanism has focused on the presence and behavior of American military personnel..." refers not to the people, but the actual anti-Americanism. It merely states that such sentiment exists, and generalises it for a main reason - US military. This has been sourced I think, though not directly to the sentence. In my opinion the opinions about the subject (so long as the are notable) deserve mention; wherepon neutrality is resulted from a number of different notable opinions. Iciac (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Bsharvy deleted stuff on average once every two days. He also routinely blind reverted every new edit, no matter whether it was good bad or indifferent. He made no positive contribution to this article at all and he and his variously named sock-puppets, (Bshanvy, Life.temp etc etc) engaged in an edit war which lasted three months at least. He mocked Igor on his talk page after Igor had been blocked and barred for having the temerity to expose him as a sock-puppet. Check the history. Saber deleted some quotes (which were subsequently restored). Colin4C (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Iciac, I don't know what you mean by "actual anti-Americanism". "Anti-Americanism" is an opinion. And it obviously says the protests the were anti-American, because after saying it was aggravated it gives the protests as the main example.

colin4C, I don't know everything that happened when I was blocked, but I know you are not fair. You have already said dishonest things to me here, and you are edit warring over the banner without giving reasons. I am at least giving reasons in my conversation with Iciac. And if bsharvy/life.temp was edit warring for three months, why wasn't he ever blocked for edit warring? You are also being dishonest about getting someone blocked. bsharvy is not an admin and didn't have anyone blocked. You are basically saying that the admins who blocked him were stupid and just obeyed bsharvy. Go tell that to the admins who did the blocking if you dare. Instead you are just complaining about it here where it does nothing but disrupt our discussion of this article. Rachel63 (talk) 03:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the admins did indeed prove themselves to be dummies in refusing to employ a check-user on Bsharvy's account until after they had blocked and barred the editor who had complained against him. They all thought the devious Bsharvy was being harassed by Igor and blocked him instead of an editor who was running at least six sock-puppets simultaneously. After Igor was blocked, Bsharvy went to his page and had a derisive laugh at him. I guess Bsharvy thought that he was untouchable at that point and could game the system for ever with the full approval of the admins. Colin4C (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, by opinion - you mean the opinion of someone using the term. I misunderstood before. What I meant by "actual anti-Americanism" was anti-American sentiment. So to re-phrase what I wrote before... The first sentence refers not to the people, but the sentiment against Americans. Anti-American sentiment is a self-referred term, instead of the critisising third party "Anti-American". I rewrote the first sentence to reflect this. Iciac (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

So if someone declares war on the USA, or kidnaps an American and kills him is that just an opinion? If someone shouts "Death to the USA" is it just an opinion that this is anti-American? If someone says that the world is round, or that water is wet, is that just an opinion?Colin4C (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

By opinion, I believe Racheal meant the observers opinion. If someone declares war on the USA, I believe it to be anti-American - THAT is my opinion; the same applies with the "Death to USA". Without proof of the offender's intent for it to be anti-American however, it could only be said that the event was believed (by specific/majority) to be anti-American. I agree that going that far is over the top, and don't really want to go into a long debate about what is/isn't an opinion. (off topic) Technically, saying that "water is wet" IS an opinion, as "wet" is a feeling - just thought I'd point that out =D. Iciac (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement that "Anti-Americanism is an opinion" is itself also just an opinion. Rachel has not produced any references to back up her POV personal opinion that "Anti-Americanism is just an opinion". She has just stated her personal POV opinion and expected us to believe it. Colin4C (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think she meant "Anti-Americanism is an opinion". Instead I think she meant that calling something anti-American was the opinion of the person saying it. Iciac (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

WHAT THE BANNER SAYS: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." What the link "dispute is resolved" says: Often, authors can view "their" articles as being NPOV, while others disagree. That an article is in an "NPOV dispute" does not necessarily mean it is biased, only that someone feels that it is....It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved....Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed" Rachel63 (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In effect you are saying that you have an absolute veto on the removal of the tag as you could string out your POV pushing for ever. Then like Bsharvy you will bit by bit create a tag farm and then use that as an excuse for mass deletions. You seem to forget that we have been through this whole spurious POV tag-farm gaming process several times before in the past year courtesy of Bsharvy and his several sockpuppets and meatpuppets. The efforts to disrupt this article failed then and they will fail again. You haven't made one single solitary constructive edit in the whole wikipedia you have just made a single purpose attack on a wikipedia page you don't like and wish to destroy. Colin4C (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Reblocked

I have reblocked Rachel as a (very obvious) sockpuppet of User:Bsharvy, notifying AN and the blocking admin. When this person reappears, someone should contact me as Colin usually does. Marskell (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead

I would just like to say that the lead is very well-written, in my opinion. 68.5.138.151 (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Marskell (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV title = Criticism of the United States?

Is this the same as Criticism of the United States? Would this not be a more NPOV title? The use of the term Anti-Americanism seems to be very close to the false argument of You're_either_with_us,_or_against_us and thus POV.--Sonjaaa (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yep. The title is total POV-pushing. It's either pushing propaganda or the interpretation that anybody called anti-American is a hater.

It is not the same. Flying planes into towers or burning an American flag or declaring war on the USA is not a criticism but an act. Colin4C (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, people declare war because they are NOT critical of the US. Acts can be critical.

This whole section is biased. An enecyclopedia can't just go around calling things anti-American.

Anti-Imperialism The Spanish-American war of 1898 marked a new dynamic expansion of American power in the world and resulted in the USA taking over Spanish colonies such as the Philippines. The consequent Philippine–American War (1899-1902) prompted the British poet Rudyard Kipling to urge the Americans to take up The White Man's Burden of ruling supposed "inferior" races. Kipling's poem was originally published in the popular magazine McClure's in 1899, with the subtitle The United States and the Philippine Islands.[43] Although Kipling's poem mixed exhortation to empire with sober warnings of the costs involved, imperialists within the United States latched onto the phrase "white man's burden" as a characterization for imperialism that justified the policy as a noble enterprise.[44][45][46][47][48]

One person who was not impressed by this rhetoric was Mark Twain who remarked that

“ The American flag should be replaced not with the stars and stripes, forget them, it should be the Jolly Roger, the skull and crossbones, because we bring murder wherever we go.[49] ”

As European immigration to the United States continued and the country's economic potential became more obvious, anti-American stances grew a much more explicit geopolitical dimension. A new strand of anti-American sentiment started to appear as America entered the competition for influence in the Pacific, and anti-Americanism was widespread among the Central Powers after the U.S. entered the First World War. Furthermore, many of the anti-American ideological threads spread to other areas, such as Japan and Latin America, where Continental philosophy was popular and growing American power was increasingly viewed as a threat. In political terms, even among the allies of the United States, Britain and France, there was resentment at the end of the war as they found themselves massively in debt to the United States.

Image copyright problem with Image:Vitrenkoposter.jpeg

The image Image:Vitrenkoposter.jpeg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Improving this article

Editors feel free to add positive contributions to this article rather than plastering in with tags and indulging in a programme of mass-deletions of referenced material which you personally disagree with. Constant mass deletions of referenced material by editors who know nothing about the subject, for POV personal reasons is not in the interests of an encyclopedia.

For those of you who don't know, this article is plagued by the many sockpuppets of User:Bsharvy. The main characteristic of these sockpuppets in a penchant for mass deletion of referenced material here, spiced with personal abuse of those who oppose them in any way. A tell-tale sign of a Bsharvy sock is that soon after being created it homes straight for this article and has, within minutes, instant and extensive knowledge of wikipedia usages, and of the complaints procedures with which to harass those who oppose it. If questioned on this the Bsharvy sock will then allege that they have studied the wikipedia for years before making their exclusive and negative 'contributions' to this page. The Bsharvy sock will also opportunistically support by its edits any and all deletions made by other editors, but will never on any occasion either add material (apart from tags) or support editors who do. In the past Bsharvy socks have fooled admins and other editors who should know better. For instance such admins aided and abetted the troll Bsharvy to block and ban one of the few editors who had the guts to oppose him: User:Igorberger. For the full gruesome details of Bsharvy's several impostures see the extensive archives...

I usually get the prize for spotting the imposture but in the present case I will let others have a go first...and make the sock sweat a bit...(I can be sadistic like that...).Colin4C (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The way you should feel free to improve the article is in any way you see fit, provided it follows policy. Colin4C isn't the authority on thwe way you are free to improve the article. Largeused (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you planning mass deletions of referenced, relevent material? Colin4C (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Bsharvy was active a couple of weeks ago. Largeused registered the account a few days later. Rather than go through another Bsharvy bout, I'd rather push for a site ban. We'll see. Marskell (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In one respect, the 'spot the Bsharvy sock' game can be quite fun. What amazes me, however, is how some editors who should know better, fail to recognise the sock and even actively aid and abet it against long-standing genuine editors. Do they admire Bsharvy's skill in gaming the system or are they part of that famous trio of the three wise monkeys who can 'see no evil', 'hear no evil' and 'speak no evil'? The wikipedia is a constant education to me on certain facets of primate (man and monkey) behaviour... Colin4C (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We have to balance WP:SOCK against WP:BITE. It's not always easy. Marskell (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Especially when you are outnumbered.... Note to the wise monkeys: there are now TWO Bsharvy socks operating here. Colin4C (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Global

There is no discussion of Chinese attitudes. In general this article approaches the subject from the perspective of the USA, most of the sources cited are from the US.Research Method (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

1 passing references to Vietnam war Mai Lai Massacre might be important.Research Method (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

"Whether sentiment hostile to the United States reflects reasoned evaluation of specific policies and administrations or a prejudiced belief system is a further complication." Why should it not reflect both? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Research Method (talk • contribs) 17:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This article references lots of South American, Arabic, British, Korean, French etc authors, therefore it is not Americano-centric. In fact it is one of the least Americano-centric articles on the wikipedia. Also, as an editor, I have contributed a lot to this article from a non-American perspective (I am English). Colin4C (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The content is still American -Centric. As I understand it many more people are Anti-American that are American, but the article focuses on the effects of their beliefs on the Usa, rather than that the beliefs that they hold, and the reasons that they hold them.Research Method (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Global refers in large part to the domination of the encyclopedia by Native English Speakers. The majority of sources cited are from the US, then from the Uk. Only a small proportion are from the rest of the world. Please examine the references section.Research Method (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has a blatant pro-American bias. Largeused (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

That is just your POV. Colin4C (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Then the contrary is just your POV. But, as the article itself points out, the term is often used as propaganda. And, as Research method pointed out, having a section titled "Middle East" doesn't mean Middle Eastern perspectives are represented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Largeused (talk • contribs) 03:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That is just your POV. Colin4C (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It explains a lot that you don't know the difference between POV and logic. (BTW, do you have any friends?) Nincomp (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nincomp, I note that you registered on the wikipedia the same day as you wrote the above message, therefore I forgive you for not knowing the wikipedia rules on personal abuse. Is your name Bsharvy, perchance? Colin4C (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I registered last year. I have three accounts: largeused, nincomp, and a main account. I hadn't noticed I was logged in as nincomp here, but there's no rule against it as long as you're not evading the 3-revert rule. As for personal abuse, you're in no position to talk. Largeused (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have note how you haven't answered my question. Colin4C (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Declarations of War on the USA

Can anybody provide a complete list, for the record? I know that Germany, Italy and Mexico declared war on the USA, but am not sure about the rest: I know that there have been lots of wars involving the USA, but do not think that all of these involved formal declarations of war (e.g. the Iraq War). Colin4C (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the above. During the Spanish-American war and in the aftermath of the Philippine Revolution against Spanish rule, the nascent First Philippine Republic declared war on the U.S. on June 2, 1899.[7] The Philippine-American war ensued. I haven't researched this, but would presume that Japan declared war on the U.S. right around the time of the Pearl Harbor attack (I have seen quibbles about whether the declaration occurred prior or subsequent to the attack, and about whether the formal document involved could properly be considered a declaration of war, but I don't have time right now to dig up the details. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 08:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think the Japanese ambassadors intended to declare war on the USA before the first bombs hit Pearl Harbour, but were delayed for some unknown reason, resulting in the infamy which the words 'Pearl Harbour' have assumed ever since in relation to an undeclared war between one nation and another. I saw a book about Pearl Harbour in a second-hand bookshop near where I live, going for just £1. I might purchase it to check up on the details.... Colin4C (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

Please do not remove this flag, as this page shows that the neutrality IS disputed. fyi -

"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. Policy shortcut: WP:YESPOV

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 neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are clearly described, represented and characterized, but 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 must studiously refrain from asserting which is better."Research Method (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You have merely defined what neutrality is, not explained why you think this article is non-neutral, therefore I am removing the tag. Colin4C (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No, he very clearly explained why he thinks it isn't neutral in the section titled Global above, and the archives which you referred us to very clearly show these exact same concerns going back for years. Having a section called "Middle East" doesn't mean the views of Middle Eastern people are equally represented here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Largeused (talk • contribs) 01:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The tag quite clearly says NOT to remove it. Please click on it, read the definition, and explain here how the current state of the article, in combination with this talk page, meets the conditions the tag describes should be met before removing the tag.Research Method (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your latest additions to the article have now made it POV, so I will not remove the tag. This article is about what third parties (authors) consider to be Anti-American attitudes and actions, not a shopping list of what you personally consider to be bad things the Americans have done in history. Colin4C (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean.Peas & Luv (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Your addition on My Lai is mostly about the details of this notorious incident rather than about anti-American reactions to it. This article is not supposed to be a POV moralistic indictment of American misdeeds but a neutral encyclopediac article. In this instance it would be better if you documented anti-American reactions to the massacre, rather than just inviting the audience to boo and hiss at the terrible Yankees. As I recall (being old enough...) world opinion on the Vietnam War was not one-sided. Some supported the Americans and some opposed them, for whatever reason...Also some supported 'tough measures' (aerial bombings etc) and some opposed them. Colin4C (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have always thought of it as a focus of anti-american sentiment. I believe that the anti-vietnam-war mov't was a large and international anti-american mov't. It includes the line "The incident prompted widespread outrage around the world. The massacre also reduced U.S. support at home for the Vietnam War. I felt that the Vietnam war deserves significant mention here because of the anti-american views that were expressed around it. I will try to document some specific attitudes. Peas & Luv (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Rationality

This article presents Anti-Americanism as irrational. It fails to properly present the logic and reasons underpinning Anti-Americanism across the world.Research Method (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC) "In Britain, a traditional U.S. ally, public affection for the USA has measurably declined in recent years. A June 2006 poll by Populus for The Times showed that the number of Britons agreeing that "it is important for Britain’s long-term security that we have a close and special relationship with the U.S." had fallen to 58% (from 71% in April), and that 65% believed that "Britain’s future lies more with Europe than America".[58] 44% agreed that "America is a force for good in the world." A later poll reported in The Guardian during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict said that 63% of Britons felt that Britain is tied too closely to the U.S.[59]" - How does this relate to Anti-Americanism?Research Method (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

They are used to indicate disapproval with the United States. Anti-Americanism isn't just an extreme, there are other points along the metaphorical bell curve. Agreed, the information doesn't specifically label those example as anti-American; however the reader may interpret them as a form of anti-Americanism. Iciac (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism isn't mere "disapproval" as this article clearly says: it is prejudice. And, the poll doesn't necessarily indicate disapproaval. Maybe Britons think a close and special relationship with the US is less important, because the US is economically weaker, or its military strength is less critical. That just means Britons think the world is changing, not any kind of dislike or disapproval... There is an excessive amount of personal opinion in this article.

In reply to 'Research Programme' this article contains stuff on what could be considered irrational anti-Americanism (e.g. the USA as Jewish World Conspiracy HQ) and rational anti-Americanism (e.g. Fidel Castro's opposition to American Imperialism in South America). In the final analysis, however, it is up to the reader of the wikipedia to decide for himself or herself what he or she considers is 'rational' or 'irrational'. We are not here to dictate how people should think, even if that was possible. Colin4C (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Colin, that's a good point. That's exactly why we should not be telling people that anti-Americanism is irrational, as we do in the Definitions section, and then listing stuff that is (according to us) anti-American. That is us dictating how people should think about that stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Largeused (talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Therefore it is a good job that we are not doing that and that we are reporting what third parties (authors) have said about Anti-Americanism, as per the references. Colin4C (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So "a later poll reported in The Guardian during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict said that 63% of Britons felt that Britain is tied too closely to the U.S." is in the article to show that Anti-Americanism is related to American Foreign Policy?Research Method (talk) 02:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How does "Furthermore, the expansion of the U.S. military base in Manta, Ecuador was met by considerably criticism, derision, and even doubt by the supporters of such an expansion" relate to anti americanism?Research Method (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Christians & Jews

"The Pew Research Institute probed more deeply the stereotypes of westerners in the Middle East. While more than 70% of Middle Easterners identified more than 3 negative characteristics of the Westerner stereotype, the three strongest were selfish, violent and greedy. Few had positive opinions of Westerners, but the strongest positive stereotypes were devout and respectful of women.[82] The report also demonstrates strong unfavorable views of Jews and weakly favorable views of Christians predominate in the Middle East. In Jordan, 61%, Pakistan 27%, and Turkey 16% have favorable views of Christians while in Jordan 1%, Pakistan 6%, and Turkey 15% have favorable views of Jews.[82]" This doesn't mention Americans. How is it relevant to Anti-Americanism?Research Method (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not. This article is dishonest in other ways too: 1) The actual reference doesn't say anything about stereotypes 2) The subject of the referenced article is "How Westerners and Muslims View Each Other". Representing that as a "probe of the stereotypes of westerners in the Middle East" is fraudulent. The article makes no mention of anti-Americanism or stereotypes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Largeused (talk • contribs) 04:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I support removing this text, and suggest listing similar mis-citations prior to a proper clean up. The article is 87kb, and missing lots of relevant information.Peas & Luv (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Technology

This one too! It doesn't have any references anybody actually calling anything anti-American.

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.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, "The breathless haste with which they (the Americans) work - the distinctive vice of the new world - is already beginning ferociously to infect old Europe and is spreading a spiritual emptiness over the continent."[43]

It has been argued that this thesis transformed into a Heideggerian critique of technologism. Heidegger wrote in 1935: "Europe lies today in a great pincer, squeezed between Russia on the one side and America on the other. From a metaphysical point of view, Russia and America are the same, with the same dreary technological frenzy and the same unrestricted organization of the average man."[citation needed] Oswald Spengler had made similar claims in 1931's Man and Technics and his 1934 bestseller The Hour of Decision.[citation needed] In 1921 the Spaniard Luis Araquistáin wrote a book called El Peligro Yanqui (“The Yankee Peril”), in which he condemned American nationalism, mechanization, anti-socialism (“socialism is a social heresy there”) and architecture, finding particular fault with the country’s skyscrapers, which he felt diminished individuality and increased anonymity. He called the United States “a colossal child: all appetite...”[44]

I agree that this article is in pretty poor shape - there are lots of unreferenced controversial statements, but it's a touchy subject and it is best to proceed slowly and incrementally given the touchy nature of the subject. I would suggest you try to improve it paragraph by paragraph, and use this talk page liberally to suggest changes that might be controversial before doing them. henrik•talk 22:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Up until the end of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries section, the article is actually quite well-referenced. After this I think there's an awful lot of bloat. Marskell (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The start is quite good, I should have clarified that. henrik•talk 12:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of bloat, check out the French. Might be some sources we could use over there. Marskell (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree people should discuss their changes. That doesn't seem to be happening. Two people keep adding the "unreferenced controversial statements" you mentioned without any discussion.

Its not just a matter of being well-referenced. Referencing alone doesn't justify content.

wELL i sURE dONT tHINK tHE hISTORY sECTION iS gOOD aT aLL. hOW aRE wE sUPPOSED tO kNOW wHETHER tHESE tHEORIES wERE cONSIPRACY tHEORIES, oR mAJORITY oPINION, oR bELIEVED oNLY bY oNE sCHOOL oF aCADEMICS aND dISPUTED bY aNOTHER??? nO wAY wOULD aNY tHING lIKE tHIS bE iN A rEAL eNCYCLOPEDIA. sHODDY aMATEUR wORK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Song32 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting orthographical choices. Marskell (talk) 10:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, it doesn't create an impression of credibility, although the concern is reasonable. Largeused (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the people editing & reverting the article would discuss what they are doing. Colin4c keeps reverting things without any discussion.

This paragraph should be removed:

Racialist critiques Drawing on the ideas of Arthur de Gobineau (1816-82) racialist thinkers decried the supposed degenerating effect of immigration on the racial mix of the American population. The Nazi philosopher Alfred Rosenberg argued that race mixture in the USA made it inferior to countries like Germany which had a supposedly pure-bred racial stock.[45] The belief that America was ruled by a Jewish conspiracy was common in countries ruled by fascists before and during World War II. The Jews, the assumed puppet masters behind American plans for world domination, were also seen as using jazz in a crafty plan to eliminate racial distinctions. However, despite these plans, according to Adolf Hitler America was not to be reckoned as a credible adversary of the Third Reich because of its incoherent social structure: "half-Judaized" and "half-Negrified".[46]

First, The Nazis thought every ethnicity was "inferior to countries like Germany," there's nothing to distinguish the US here. The pargraph itself directly attributes this to his general racism rather than anti-Americanism per se. Second, this is unreferenced and passive-voice: "The belief that America was ruled by a Jewish conspiracy was common in countries ruled by fascists before and during World War II. The Jews, the assumed puppet masters behind American plans for world domination, were also seen as using jazz in a crafty plan to eliminate racial distinctions.". Again, this is really anti-Semitism rather than anti-Americanism, and probably is better placed in the article on Hitler. Largeused (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC).

Nazi anti-Americanism and misconceptions as to race-mixing and Jewish conspiracies is important as it partly explains why Nazi Germany declared war on America in December 1941. This declaration of war was a serious blunder, which almost guaranteed German defeat. The Nazi underestimate of American power is made more comprehensible by the nature of their anti-Americanism. Colin4C (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That's silly and wrong. Germany declared war on the US because the US declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor. More generally, the US had been an active ally of Great Britain's for years. Even if there were credible references to back up your claim (which there aren't), it would belong in a different article. Nazi prejudice against Jews and "Negroes" isn't anti-Americanism just because there were those groups existed in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Largeused (talk • contribs) 12:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Colin's comment isn't wholly wrong: that both Germany and Japan greatly underestimated U.S. potential is pretty much a commonplace. You're right that such an observation would be appropriate to another article.

But this paragraph I don't have a huge problem with. American Jews and Black Americans are American. Bigotry directed at the country because of them qualifies as AA. Marskell (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My main objection would be that its not really that America-specific. Nazi Germany thought itself superior to pretty much every other nation, so it doesn't feel as it was especially directed at the U.S. My thought would be that it is one of those pieces of prose that chould be tightened to improve the article, perhaps by trimming it down to a sentence or two. Nazi race philosophy isn't really a cornerstone of the anti-American phenomenon, after all. henrik•talk 12:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have plenty more references on this subject, which is of crucial importance to the outcome of world history and about which a lot has been written (see for instance Saul Friedlander's book Prelude to Downfall: Hitler and the United States). On matters of fact, Adolf Hitler was not obliged by treaty obligations to Japan to declare war on the USA. Conversely the Japanese did not join in on Germany's side against Russia. Adolf had been annoyed for a long time at the covert support that Roosevelt had given to the UK and, as this article states, because he seriously underestimated the power of the USA, based on popular racist anti-American theorising that because of supposed race-mixture, that the USA was not a credible opponent as compared to supposedly pure bred Aryan Germans. (By the way, the same somewhat lame theory was often put forward to account for the decline and fall of the Roman Empire). Also, according to Nazi philosophy, the USA was one of the two anti-poles of the Jewish World Conspiracy (the other being Soviet Russia). According to this philosophy, in the final showdown between the Aryans and the Jews, Germany was obliged to take on both Russia and the USA, which is in fact what they did do. The Nazi nightmare fantasy gained credibility during World War Two when the Morgenthau Plan aiming at the ruralisation of post-war Germany was espoused in the USA by the American Jew Morgenthau, whilst at the same time the Russian Jew Ilya Ehrenburg was preaching the total destruction of Germany. According to the Nazi propagandist Goebbels this proved that the World Jewish Conspiracy was in fact true. Just to add that I can provide references from numerous sources for all the above if editors here choose to disbelieve them or diminish their importance. Nazi anti-Americanism was not just idle thoughts but had a crucial impact on a World War in which hundreds of millions of people lost their lives. Therefore it is important. Colin4C (talk) 11:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

All of this is irrelevant. Nothing said here distinguishes Hitler's so-called anti-Americanism from his anti-Polandism, anti-Russianism, anti-Czeckism, etc. The preference expressed above by Henrik, marskell, and myself is for one brief paragraph, not a multi-paragraph section. The concern expressed by others above is that the article, after the intro, is bloated. Largeused (talk) 03:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The topic is very important and many books and articles have been written about it. All your statements above are just your own unreferenced personal POV. Please provide detailed references saying that Hitler's anti-Americanism was unimportant and not to be distinguished from anything else. I have provided references in the text backing up the statements made, you have not. Colin4C (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The reference you cite doesn't say what you say it does. You are compromising the integrity of the article for the sake of a mind game. Nor does any reference say that Hitler's anti-Americanism was significant to understanding anti-Americanism generally. And, if it did, that would be the author's opinion and would have to be represented as such here, rather than as fact. Nor has any editor but you said that the Hitler's racism needs to be expanded on here. In short, you are distorting every aspect of this topic and discussion. Largeused (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please provide references for all the assertions you have made above. Your personal POV on the issue is not of interest. Colin4C (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There were millions of Germans in America[8]. Was Hitler opposed to them, as German Americans, or to Jewish Americans, as Jews? I don't understand why so much offensive Anti-Semitic and Racist material needs to be repeated in this article.Research Method (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I quoted Hitler's own words in case people thought I was making it up. The belief that the USA was the HQ of the Jewish World Conspiracy was fairly common among Fascists and others in Europe. Conversely, the tragedy and irony was that some people thought that as the US was in the power of the Jews that therefore they would do more to save the European Jews from mass extermination, which proved not to be the case. Anti-Semitic and pro-Semitic politicians both believed that the Jews were all-powerful in the USA and that they had to adjust their policies accordingly. For instance the Polish government-in-exile toned down its trad anti-Semitic rhetoric in order to curry favour with the USA, whom they believed to be in the power of the Jews. For the Nazis the declaration of war on the USA was the pivotal moment of their crazy Wagnerian fantasy: pitting the pure-bred Aryans against mixed-race Jewish plutocracy of America, at the same time as they contended against the 'Jewish-Bolshevism' of Russia. A crazy idea, to be sure, but one which resulted in the deaths of millions. This is a very important subject, much more important than the space allocated to it here and much more important, for instance, than the mass of wikipedia garbage on particular episodes or characters of obscure American soap-operas or cartoons etc. There is a guideline on the wikipedia which states that we should adopt a world perspective, not getted bogged down in obscure popular culture trivia of interest only to couch potatos in the USA and talk about serious stuff. Colin4C (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

Why is there no mention of this important example of anti-americanism?Research Method (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Er...there is...Look at the last sentence of the 'Middle East' section. Colin4C (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

They are mentioned once, and not as a focus of Anti Americanism.Research Method (talk) 02:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

9/11 is mentioned as an important example of an anti-American action. This article covers both actions and attitudes. Anti-Americanism is not all talk, sometimes it expresses itself in actions such as flying planes into towers. Colin4C (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That's just your personal POV. A neutral encyclopedia lets readers decide that for themselves. Largeused (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Largeused, I'm a bit confused. What in particular are you saying that a neutral encyclopedia should allow readers to decide for themselves? As I read the discussion above, the question would be whether or not flying airplanes into the WTC on 9/11 should be considered an anti-American act. Do I have that right? Are you arguing that a neutral encyclopedia should allow readers to decide for themselves whether or not America-haters who fly airplanes into major American office buildings are committing an anti-American act? (readers, of course, will decide that for themselves in any case)

Also, I'll note here that this discussion section appears to have been overtaken by changes in the article, which now sports a section headed Anti American Reaction to the Attack on The Pentagon and World Trade Center. That section holds up a number of cite-supported examples:

• The first three cites are of an article titled "Anti-Americanism in Brazil" ("Talk about blaming the victim. ...") I think there is little need to belabor that here.
• The fourth example seems, from the rhetoric, to clearly be "anti" ("... The buildings affected send a message: do not be able to build a world civilization with the dominant type of economy (symbolized by the World Trade Center), with the kind of death mounted machine (Pentagon) and with the kind of arrogant politics and producer of many exclusions (White House spared because the plane crashed before). For me began to collapse the system and culture of the capital. They are too destructive. ..."
• the fourth and fifth cites, of a CNN news story headed "French buy into 9/11 conspiracy" describes a book which CNN says, "... casts doubt on the official version of the events of September 11, substituting an elaborate conspiracy concocted by America's military-industrial complex in order to increase U.S. military budgets." (CNN clearly considers that book to be "anti") and a TIME article which describes the book as championing the theory "... that the attacks — and the 3,000 victims they claimed — were the work of officials in the U.S. government and military, looking for an excuse to launch war on Afghanistan and Iraq." ("anti", I'd say).
• I'd also say that the sixth cite, a Guardian article headed "9/11 wicked but a work of art, says Damien Hirst", is a bit "anti" ("The artist Damien Hirst said last night he believed the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks 'need congratulating' because they achieved "something which nobody would ever have thought possible' on an artistic level."). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is true: "a neutral encyclopedia should allow readers to decide for themselves" whether something is anti-American. Whether something is anti-American is a POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Largeused (talk • contribs) 15:42, November 13, 2008

WP articles should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue (see the lead para of WP:POV). WP articles should not push the POV of WP editors (see WP:SOAP). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it may cite the POV of significant experts, giving equal weight to varying viewpoints. That doesn't mean it represents those POV's. Largeused (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether something is 'anti-American' is a matter of common sense. 'Anti' = 'Against'. Declaring war on the USA, burning the American flag, deliberately targeting and killing Americans is by definition 'anti-American'. Writing that the Americans are terrible people is also, according to common sense, 'anti-American'. Whether or not people are 'justified' in any particular instance in performing anti-American actions or having anti-American sentiments is another matter, which I think we can leave to the readers of the wikipedia to decide for themselves. Colin4C (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Incessant Use of One-Sided Sources

Here is a New York Times review of three scholars cited in this work, Barry and Judy Rubin, Hollander, and Jean-Francois Revel. [9] The review is by Johnathan Tepperman, senior editor of Foreign Affairs. The article characterizes the scholars (variously) as "conservative, polemical, pedantic, wildly discursive and undisciplined, united by rage at America's enemies -- with a venom that mirrors the anti-Americans' own."

So? That just shows these matters are debated, right? Sure, but this article cites Rubin et. al: 14 times. It cites Hollander 5 times. Largeused (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to make positive contributions to the article. Colin4C (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for the permission. The idea is to have a conversation about what is best and work together. Maybe you could feel free to do that. Largeused (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

How about tagging, as a start, unbalanced sections with {{Unbalanced}} tags and lopsided snippets therein with {{lopsided}} tags? Better yet, per WP:NPOV#Balance, add cite-supported material to balance lopsidedness. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

POV

Please note that this article is about anti-American attitudes and actions, not a venue for listing bad things the Americans may or may not have done. Colin4C (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note the bad things Americans have done causes attitudes labelled "anti-American." Largeused (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but we should stay focused on the anti-American reactions, which were real and often creative - particularly in regard to South American literature (which is what I know most about). The usual fallacy is to assume that other countries were and are just passive victims of American Imperialism and to then construct a martyrology of victimhood. As well to bear in mind that there were and are active pro-American attitudes as well. Colin4C (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This is impossible, because it is a value judgement: "stay focused on the anti-American reactions." There's no consensus about what it means, as the article itself says: "used in an impressionistic manner, resulting in an incoherent nature". This is your personal POV and has nothing to do with "we" should do in the article: "The usual fallacy is to assume that other countries were and are just passive victims of American Imperialism and to then construct a martyrology of victimhood". Largeused (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That is just your POV. Colin4C (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that anti-Americans are once again taking over the editing of this article. I understand that many people try to use Wikipedia as their own personal blog, but that's not what it's for. Listing a bunch of poopie things Americans are alleged to have done is not a sensible way to contribute to this article. Would an article on anti-Semitism have a list of what's REALLY BAD about Jews? --Cultural Freedom 2008-11-30 15:19 (UTC)

It's an uphill task here trying to counter-act the simplistic notions and conceptual vacancy of the axe grinders. This article should be about the (negative) reactions to whatever it is the Americans may or may not have done. These reactions were real and happened in real time/space and were exhaustively recorded in documents and books and are exhaustively analysed in other books and articles. For instance the latest terror attacks in Mumbai targeted Americans (Britons and Jews). This is a fact. The question on whether these reactions against the Americans (or Britons or Jews etc) were 'justified' or not, is not something which a wikipedia editor is qualified to judge. We are not an international court of judges, merely recorders. Colin4C (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Tiger Force

Just to say that contrary to what the article states, the Tiger Force operation in Vietnam did not create widespread outrage against America. The facts about the war crimes committed in this operation were only revealed about 2002 as I recall and didn't create any particular reaction against America as far as I am aware. This article should stay focused on anti-American reactions not become a list of 'wicked things the Americans did'. Colin4C (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend eliminating the whole section about the Vietnam War, at least for now. It makes no sense as written (though my addition makes the section slightly less imbalanced). --Cultural Freedom 2008-12-25 16:37 (UTC)

I agree with you. Otherwise I suggest that the editor who created it does some research on the subject. E.g. from what I know, the Soviets capitalised greatly on the Vietnam war in order to promote and justify anti-Americanism. And, as already mentioned in another section in the article, Che Guevara, for one, wanted to create another Vietnam in South America as part of a broad, world-wide anti-American coalition. Colin4C (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Soviets were brilliant "cultural cold warriors". Let's give the editor who created this section a few days to respond. If there's no response, I'll delete the section. --Cultural Freedom 2008-12-25 17:58 (UTC)

Supposedly

this is a pretty idiotic statement... "Australia supposedly has an anti-American undercurrent." I live in Australia and i know plenty of anti-americans and pro-americans (more anti than pro). So we don't supposedly have an anti-American undercurrent. MANY DO HAVE!!! perhaps instead it should something along the lines of, "Australia has both an anti-American and pro-American undercurrent"

Much of this article is in a pretty sorry state. However, wikipedia doesn't allow original research so what you suggest isn't a good idea. Better to just delete the nonsense instead.
—Apis (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"terrorists and war criminals ... School of the Americas"

In the section Latin America is the line "the training of terrorists and war criminals in the School of the Americas". Seems a little one sided here. Certainly critcism can be levied at the School of the Americas, but that line suggests that the training of "terrorists and war criminals" was the full intent and purpose of the organization rather than a consequence. Jbarta (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged the Latin American section as disputed, and unbalanced, because of the aforementioned issue, and the general balance issues in the section. For example "the farcical, failed, Bay of Pigs Invasion" - now it may have been a farce, but is that an encyclopedic term to use? "Cuba into a virtual dependency of the United States, also prompted hatred of America" - "virtual dependency" "hatred" - pretty strong terms. "Perceived racist attitudes of the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants of the north towards the populations of South America also caused resentment." (Who's the racist - talking about "White Anglo Saxon Protestants" without even naming which ones are the "racists"?) Castro quote - "a vulture...feeding on humanity" Che quote - '"creating a Second or a Third Vietnam" on the South American continent against the designs of American Imperialism.' Note no quotes around "American Imperialism" and the capitalization of "Imperialism" as if it's a proper noun. Another Che quote: "The United States hastens the delivery of arms to the puppet governments they see as being increasingly threatened; it makes them sign pacts of dependence to legally facilitate the shipment of instruments of repression and death and of troops to use them." Also - the Fidel and Che quotes are WP:OR and WP:V- WP is supposed to cite second party sources, and verifiable ones at that, not primary sources. Where's the opposing view? There is one - why isn't it here? And no, I'm not going to WP:FIXIT, because the people involved in this article should - if they're interested in writing an encyclopedia, rather than pushing POV.72.70.252.189 (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Is your name Bsharvy perchance? Colin4C (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dubious reference

In the Anti-Americanism#Latin America section, there's a reference cited twice: "Jan Bazan (1977) A Concise History of Mexico. Oxford University Press". There appears to be no such book, and the only published author named Jan Bazan appears to be a mathematician. There is a book A Concise History of Mexico from the Cambridge University Press [10] by another author, but it's out of print and might not support the assertions in the article, so I've commented out the "Jan Bazan" reference in both places. OttoTheFish (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Spelling error I'm afraid. It should be "Jan Bazant", with a "t".... See http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521291736 Colin4C (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted, thanks. Will add detail to those refs and merge them. OttoTheFish (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Current Anti-Americanism

The two Twentieth century topics on anti-globalization and Anti American Reaction to the Attack on The Pentagon and World Trade Center should be moved to a new section titled Current Anti-Amercanism. OR Perhaps a new article of current attitudes with the historical aspects remaining in this article. 172.131.161.251 (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Qutb.jpg

The image File:Qutb.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Said to be anti-American"

I have deleted some comments on 9/11 which an anon editor claims are "said to be anti-American", without giving a ref, for such claims. These comments are neither prima facie expressions of anti-Americanism or referenced as such. I take it as read that the actual events of 9/11 were anti-American and taken as such. I.e. flying the planes into the towers was an hostile act against America, not an expression of love. Colin4C (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad English

The following edit does not seem to be in proper English:

"Hijackers intentionally crashed 2 American Airlines airliners into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, killing everyone on board the planes and causing mass casualties within the buildings, 1 airliner into the Pentagon, a 4th plane crashed into a field near Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania.

I have therefore restored the previous, better, version. Colin4C (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The "East Asia and Oceania" section is totally misspelled to the point that it can't be understood, so I added "Cleanup" and 'Grammer" tags. --87.109.211.185 (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop Adding Gunk

Notice: "This page is 90 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size."

This article is a rampage of cultural bias, POV-pushing, and bloat. Please stop adding material that you know many people feel is culturally biased. The rules are clear: If you know it is controversial, get consensus before adding. Largeused (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop mass deleting referenced, relevent material on Anti-Americanism. Colin4C (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

9/11

As 9/11 is probably the most serious act of anti-Americanism ever, and the culmination of decades/centuries of anti-Americanism I do not think it should be deleted, without mention on the Talk page. I have therefore restored it, after it was deleted by Bsharvy - who has demonstrated in the past his aim to wreck this article. Colin4C (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling 9/11 anti-Americanism is POV. Calling anything that is POV. This section just repeats information that already exists elsewhere in Wikipedia (many places), adding no insight into anti-Americanism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.118.94.113 (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The references cited call it anti-American. If you believe differently please provide relevent references. Please note that an editor's unsupported POV is not relevent. Colin4C (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean an encyclopedia can call it anti-American. Finding someone who calls it that means you can claim somebody calls it that, not that it is a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 03:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, none of the "references cited" call it anti-American. What are you looking at? It's kind of moot anyway, because the section does nothing but list facts about 9/11 that are already listed in the article on 9/11. Is there some prominent person who gives an analysis of the anti-Americanism behind 9/11? Noloop (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh for the love of God, how the hell was 9-11 not anti-American??? I'm sure if they were pro-American or neutral they wouldn't have done it. If they were only against the government then they only would have hit government targets. Of course 9-11 was anti-American. Anybody with a brain in their head would know this as common knowledge.

"Anti-american" doesn't mean against the government. But the point wasn't that it's not anti-American. The point is that that section doesn't contribute anything to the article, and maybe that an encylopedia shouldn't call things anti-American. Is the war in Iraq anti-Islam? Should we have a big article an America's anti-Islamic prejudice, and write "Oh for the love of God, how the hell is a war against an Islamic country not anti-Islamic??" See the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 17:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Unsupported Assertion

I have removed this unsourced POV geo-political analysis.

• The Middle East region has been a focal point of much anti-American sentiment in the latter decades of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first, often blamed on specific U.S. policies in the region, particularly its close relationship with Israel and its stance on such matters as Sudan's civil war and Darfur. However, some argue that the real roots lay in government policy as reflected in state-directed media. By this reasoning, America is blamed for failed systems in the Middle East, as a means of re-directing internal dissent outwards, towards what Osama Bin Ladin has called "the far enemy", America, instead of at indigenous regimes.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

POV

The following sentence makes no sense - it is unsourced, and offers 2 extreme choices. I have removed it from the lead.

• Whether sentiment hostile to the United States reflects reasoned evaluation of specific policies and administrations or a prejudiced belief system is a further complication93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Lake Presidentia?

I'm quite sur[rised the fact that the Caribbean was, for a lomg time, known in diplomatic colloquialism as Lake Monroe is not mentioned anywhere.

Tamrhind (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

1st paragraph

I edited the first paragraph so that... 1) It specifies that the definition of anti-americanism comes straight from dictionaries, and isn't an official wikipedia position. This matters because.... 2) The definition is bad. All sorts of people oppose American polices or government without being anti-american. As the article itself says later, anti-americanism "configures the way of life as threatening to its core" (or something like that). That's very different from widespread opposition. 3) The article also says definitions are problematic and "incoherent in nature," so we shouldn't be taking a position on that. 4) Finally, the reference about "cultural anti-Americanism" is just a list of google links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 03:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal Opinions of Various Authors

This article is like a platform for the theories of a handful of authors. The entire degeneracy section is like that. Doesn't seem very balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 05:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What's this article really about?

The article spends the whole first half explaining why there can be no agreement on what "anti-Americanism" means, that sometimes it is Soviet-style propaganda, sometimes it is prejudice, sometimes a mixture. Then it goes on to say all sorts of things about anti-americanism, without specifying which phenomenon it means. That doesn't make sense. Noloop (talk) 02:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the structure of the Islamophobia article is a more neutral than this one. It documents things called Islamophobic by notable sources, rather than claiming they are, in fact, cases of phobia. That's more neutral. This article consists of Wikipedia asserting that all sorts of things are anti-American. What do people think of changing the structure of this article to make it more neutral? Noloop (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It should at least mention that it is often a form of racism. Fuzbaby (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't mention that, because that is a personal opinion. (Also, it's a very weird personal opinion...racism against which race?) Noloop (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The American race? I know that seems weird because Americans are made up of all different races, but all countries are to an extent. If someone said "I hate the Swiss" you'd probably call them racist. Why is "I hate the Americans" different? Adam Carolla (talk) 11:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The more I dig into this article, the more I feel it is a platform for propaganda. The structure of the Islamophobia article is more appropriate to topics like this. Are there any objections to listing important cases that are often called anti-American by notable sources. Right now it's just a lot of accusations against people and groups. Noloop (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

9/11

Most of the 11/9 stuff seems to be about the attacks and how many nations condemed it, not about Anti-amricanisam, I think this needs to be re-writen.Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Most of the article needs to be re-written. Noloop (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Middle East

WebHamsrter keeps adding this material asserting that it just says what the cites say, and isn't POV.

The term "Great Satan"[66][67], as well as the chant "Death to America"[68] have been in continual use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979.[69] The Iranian capital Tehran has many examples of anti-American murals and posters sponsored by the state; the former U.S. Embassy in the city has been decorated with a number of such murals.[70][71]

As I've pointed out more than once, none of the cites actually say what the article says. The first two don't say "continual use...since...1979". The latter two don't say Tehran is decorated with a number of anti-american murals. The paragraph misrepresentes other authors on the Web, and argues for POV regarding Iran and anti-Americanism. Please stop reinserting it. Noloop (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The references in this paragraph simply don't support the paragraph. (One of the references for "in use since 1979" is dated 1995 and wouldn't be a valid source for what's happpened in the last 14 years anyway.) There is no excuse for reverting without discussion. Noloop (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The first para which you keep deleting "The Great Satan!" is supported by 2 references which demonstrate that this is indeed an anti-American slur. But for some strange reason you delete it. The second para is supported by a reference that does indeed state that the first use was in 1979. It doesn't matter if the article was created in 1995 or 2008, the fact that it was first used in 1979 is still the case and if it was used again in 1995 then it is indeed correct to used the "used since" wording. The fact remains though that as you are trying to remove a referenced paragraph that has been in the article for quite a while then the onus is on you to garner consensus to remove it. Until you do I suggest you either leave it alone or rewrite it. Do not delete it. --WebHamster 14:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Nothing can "demonstrate" that something is anti-American, as this article itself points out. As you, in fact pointed out, "anti-American" is a POV term.

2. The 1st ref is an opinion piece of one writer. It's valid as ref for nothing except that some writer had that opinion. What that ref actually says is that "Ayatollah Khomeini famously dubbed it, as the "Great Satan"." That is the only reference to that term in the article. It says nothing about being the term being "in use." (The phrase "in use" is so vague it's meaningless anyway.) It says nothing about "Death to America."

4.The 2nd ref is also an analysis, not factual reporting. It is written, not by a neutral source, but by the "Director of Threat Analysis in the Air Force Office of Special Investigations" It is published by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a US military organization. Gee, I was expecting the US military to say Iran is mellow, weren't you? Valid references are neutral, and they are factual. Nonetheless, the article doesn't support the reference. It's only claim, which is an opinion, is that (in 1995, when it was written) the "United States continues to represent the Great Satan." That's an author interpretation. So, 14 years ago one person in the US military said the Iranian government thought of the US that way. Says nothing about being "in use" since any time. There is no mention of "Death to America" at all.

5. The last part of the paragraph claims there are many anti-American murals in Tehran. The 1st ref for that is one picture with no article and no claims by any source.

6.The 2nd ref makes no mention of anti-Americanism at all. It's an article written by a photographer describing her exhibition. It's not a basis for reporting as fact that Tehran is has many anti-American murals. Noloop (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you QUOTE the part of the refs you think support the text in question, as a starting point for working toward consensus? Noloop (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You say: "6. The 2nd ref makes no mention of anti-Americanism at all. It's an article written by a photographer describing her exhibition." The source says: "Though less numerous than those depicting the revolution and the Iran-Iraq war, the most thematically persistent murals have featured anti–United States and anti-Israeli images". 76.117.1.254 (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

3O

Hi folks. Third opinion on offer here. If I understand the disagreement properly, it revolves around the following;

i) Whether "the Great Satan" is a current term used in Iran to refer to America (?)/USA.

ii) Whether there is evidence to indicate the frequency of use of "Death to America" chants. I think everyone is accepting the start date of 1979.

iii) Whether there is evidence for Tehran having many anti-American murals or not

I would suggest that if any of the three disputed points are accurate, noteworthy, and non fringe views (which is my, perhaps ill-informed, understanding), then it should be easy to come up with multiple RS's to that effect. I suspect you people are far better placed to chase these up than I am, but I offer these as possible useful starting points for i). You might consider these worth looking into for ii) and as far as iii) is concerned these might be useful, but I'll leave it to you to be the judge.

I think much of the dispute can be settled by wording that closely matches RS's rather than interpolating or synthesising what they might be saying. Some direct quotes might help too, and at the very least in the reference. I hope that's of some help. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd adjust the description of the dispute a bit.

i)Webhamster's rudeness as seen on his Talk page, in which he basically tells me to fuck off (not in so many words, but that's the gist).

ii)Whether it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to call anything anti-American

ii)Whether the sources are balanced, i..e. neutral weight.

I haven't followed all your links yet. The phrases "current term used" and "in use" are pretty vague. Is "The Roman Empire" a term currently "in use" in Europe? Sure. What about "Axis of Evil" Sure, in some context, sometimes. Does that prove America is racist against Persians?? The term "many" as in "many anti-American murals" is also POV. What's "many?" And what's anti-American? To a reader, it means hostile, hateful murals. To an Iranian it might mean a mural that truly describes the US. Can Wikipedia editors just decide their POV is right and the Iranians are wrong?Noloop (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If I were going to tell you to fuck off you would be in no doubt and "gist" wouldn't come up. The problem here lies both in your lack of understanding as to what consensus is (in Wikipedia) and the other is your own personal interpretation of the sources. You also seem to have a misunderstanding of the way POV is treated here. The article itself can be about a POV so long as the editors writing it don't show any. As "anti-Americanism" is a POV the sources themselves will show signs of POV. The sources we are talking about are only being used to demonstrate that the comments in the prose exist in the real world, which of course they do. As for stupid comments such as "what's many" well I'm not sure how to explain it to someone who has to ask the question! It's more than a few, duh! The fact you are asking such inane questions demonstrates that you don't have a clue as to what this article is actually about, so how the hell do you expect to edit it? And what the hell are you on about with regard to the Iranian anti-American murals? Do you think we are talking about a nice rural scene painted of central Colorado? Sheesh! This is like ice skating up hill. --WebHamster 16:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Webhamster here. I originally read your point-by-point rebuttal and I thought you were right, but then looking at the sources and what the text says, the source do cover pretty well what is said in the text. Maybe more scholarly sources would be better, and a quick search in google books easily finds several books about the topic, confirming that the statement in the text is factual and relatively uncontroversial. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see the "anti-US" reference, but it really doesn't matter. Calling something anti-US, or anti-American is an opinion and shouldn't be reported as fact in an encyclopedia. If it is a notable opinion, the fact of that opinion might be notable, but a photographer just describing their own photographs isn't notable. Noloop (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for your claim that these mural are not anti-US? 76.117.1.254 (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim they are not anti-US. I claimed that such discussion are about opinions rather than facts, and that some photographer discussing her pictures isn't a notable opinion. Noloop (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The next two paragraphs are equally bad. Neither of the polls say they are measures of anti-Americanism. The implication that having an "unfavorable" opinion is the same as being anti-American is POV. The Pew poll says nothing about "probing stereotypes". Has anybody actually gone through this whole article and checked the references? The majority of this article promotes propaganda.Noloop (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Seriously, now I can understand Webhamster. Read the opening paragraph. There is a definition of Anti-Americanism, that is, "opposition or hostility to the people, government or policies of the United States". Does the Pew poll measure "opposition or hostility to the people, government or policies of the United States". Yes, it does, because as the paragraph clearly says, it measures attitutes toward the US and the paragraph closely follows what the polls actually say. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

1.The Pew Poll does nothing of the sort. The paragraph reflects little of what the source says. The source says nothing about stereotypes, but that's the gist of the paragraph. Even if it did, the source would be interpreting not measuring, and an encylopedia doesn't just repeat the opinions of sources.

2. As for the opening paragraphs, why don't you read...

"the nature and applicability of the term is often disputed."

"critics sometimes argue the label is a propaganda term that is used to dismiss any censure of the United States as irrational"

"Discussions on anti-Americanism have in most cases lacked a precise definition of what the sentiment entails, which has led to the term being used broadly and in an impressionistic manner, resulting in an incoherent nature in the many expressions described as anti-American."

"American academic Noam Chomsky... asserts that the use of the term within the U.S. has parallels with methods employed by totalitarian states or military dictatorships; he compares the term to "anti-Sovietism", a label used by the Kremlin to suppress dissident or critical thought, for instance"

"...criticisms of the United States are labeled "anti-American" by supporters of U.S. policies in an ideological bid to discredit their opponents."

Given that background, it is hard to see how it's appropriate for editors to be deciding what Wikipedia shall consider anti-American, and what it shall not. It isn't a factual matter. Noloop (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ok, it seems there is a more fundamental issue here; should WP have an article on anti-Americanism. I would argue yes. It is a notable topic that a reader seeking to understand should be able to come to WP and be able to find further info. So, if there is to be an article, then it must conform to WP policies. The guts of this is not aiming for truth, but aiming for balanced coverage. There also is no room for OR. So I think it may be useful to consider the various sources for what is being written and ensure that they are stuck to closely. It sounds like much of that is happening. BUT what else seems to be needed is a section that addresses the various concerns associated with even having a phrase such as "anti-American" - and this section will also have to stick closely to RS. What do you think? Cheers Blippy (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the opening paragraphs, which I excerpt above, are pretty good. They are balanced, and give an overview of the issue. In the opening paragraphs, Wikipedia isn't calling people anti-American. It doesn't imply the Middle East is chock full of anti-Americanism. It mentions criticism of the term, and defenses of it. It's the latter sections that veer into rampant POV--saying what's anti-American and what isn't. They don't just report what notable sources say. The other problem is the sourcing gets really bad in the later pargraphs, as I've argued above. I was wrong on a few points about the sources, but the larger point is intact. These problems are related. A poll finds that Middle Easterners have an "unfavorable" opinion of the US, and some editor puts that in this article as a factual case of Middle Eastern anti-Americanism. Noloop (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. However regarding the rest of the article it fits the concluding sentence in the intro very well: "Discussions on anti-Americanism have in most cases lacked a precise definition of what the sentiment entails, which has led to the term being used broadly and in an impressionistic manner, resulting in an incoherent nature in the many expressions described as anti-American".

I am a bit surprised about the definition though, "widespread opposition or hostility to the people, government or policies of the United States." With this kind of inclusiveness I would be hard pressed to think of any American that would not qualify as anti-American, because everyone I know has critized one or more of the policies of the United States at some point. However that is the definition, and there is no question that the subject is notable, that is simply not what is being discussed here. The problem seems to be that the article has evolved into a list of examples where everyone has included examples of what they think is anti-americanism or examples where someone has used the term anti-americanism. The article needs structure and clarity.

I would suggest that the article be divided into three main sections, each with a header that corresponds to the definition in the intro, that is anti-americanism as being either cases of opposition or hostility towards "people", "government" and "policies" respectively. Each section could then include examples of anti-americanism being used in each of these cases, perhaps followed by any criticism that may fit into each of these categories. Just a rough idea to get this somewhere. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the dictionary definition is useless. Like you said, everybody is anti-American by that definition. It's good that the article specifies that this is something dictionaries tend to say, instead of the article saying so itself.

We can't give examples of anti-Americanism, because that would just be giving our opinion. We need to state facts, which can include the fact of some notable opinions. I think a section briefly listing/summarizing notable claims of anti-Americanism would be OK. We have to make sure we are not giving our opinion of a poll or action that seems anti-American to us (no matter how obvious to us). The point is that we shouldn't tell readers what to consider anti-American. We give them relevant info, and let them decide what to consider anti-American. The second half of this article goes way beyond that. Noloop (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"We have to make sure we are not giving our opinion of a poll or action that seems anti-American" - As if the section in question gives an opinion about how to interpret the results of the opinion poll. You must be kidding. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, putting the polls in an article on anti-Americanism suggests that we interpret them as evidence of anti-Americanism. The polls don't say that, though. The paragraph on the Pew research says it is about stereotypes Middle Easterners have, even though the poll does not say that. It is not even about the Middle East or the U.S.; it is about Muslims and Westerners, including European Muslims and Indonesia. The whole article is full of distorted refs like that. Noloop (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring

I've made the reasons for removing clear, but in an effort to stop the edit warring, I will summarize again. Basically, here are the problems:

1. The sources say nothing about anti-Americanism, so it is only the POV of W. editors to include them here.
2. The statements are not truly sourced, i.e. don't support the text.
3. the sources aren't notable.

The term "Great Satan"[66][67], as well as the chant "Death to America"[68] have been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979.[69]

[66] says nothing about anti-Americanism. It is POV to interpret the source as evidence of anti-Americanism in Iran. (In the same context as discussing "Great Satan," it discusses Bush's terms ""axis of evil" and "outpost of tyranny".) [67] says nothing about anti-Americanism. It is 14 years old, and not a source of what has happened "since...1979". It is also a publication of the US military, and not neutral.

The Iranian capital Tehran has many examples of anti-American murals and posters sponsored by the state; the former U.S. Embassy in the city has been decorated with a number of such murals.[70][71]

[70] is just an image. It's not a source. [71] is a college student discussing her photos. It's not a basis for reporting, as fact, that there are "many examples of anti-American murals" It's not a basis for reporting a notable person has that opinion, because she's isn't notable.

What remains is: The chant "Death to America"[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979.[69] Noloop (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You can keep wittering on with your own interpretations as much as you like but if they aren't gaining you any consensus for the removal of the sourced sections then you may as well not bother as without consensus the sourced sections stay. Oh and by the way, the ref for The Great Satan is there to demonstrate that it's a genuine term. Also references don't have to apply for the whole of the timeline, the fact they state it started in '79 is enough. Now as you are obviously someone who won't take advice from people who know the rules better than you I don't think I'll bother with any more explanations as you're obviously not listening. I'll just keep reverting any changes you make without consensus. Hopefully your memory will allow you to understand why. --WebHamster 17:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• You are the only person objecting, so "no consensus" is a non-reason for reverting.
• Your opinion is irrelevant unless you can give it in a civil manner, which you failed to do above. You're improving tho.
• "Demonstrating [something] is a genuine term" doesn't demonstrate relevance. The text doesn't say "'Great Satan'" is a genuine term," fortunately, since that would be meaningless.
• If you say something has been in use since 1979, the implication is that it is in use now. A 14-year old source can't do that.
• You addressed none of the problems with the text about murals, even though that is the main part of my edit. So, you haven't even attempted to explain the main part of your reversion.Noloop (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What don't you understand about the requirement is for YOU to gain consensus to remove long-standing sourced material. You've had several editors tell you this yet you still won't listen. This is the last time I am going to spend on explaining things to you. You obviously have cognitive problems. Like I said I'm not going to spend any more time explaining the way things work to someone like you. You've already wasted both mine and several other editor's valuable time with your self-opinionated twaddle both here and in various other parts of the project. --WebHamster 22:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Woh! It seems things have revved up a bit here. OK, it seems to me that Noloop is making an attempt to stick closely to the sources. I haven't viewed them myself, but I think N's points seem reasonable at face value. In any case it seems the only disputed bits are dating the use of 'Great Satan' reliably, and an RS stating there are numerous examples of anti-American murals in Tehran. Surely this can't be too hard? Again, I haven't looked at the sources yet, but if they are compromised in the way Noloop suggests, it should be a simple matter to replace them with better ones - and it couldn't hurt to have better ones anyway. One of the strengths, but frustrating parts of WP is that it is constantly evolving, so I don't think it's valid to dismiss N out of hand WH. I'm happy to have a look for sources myself but may not get a chance for a little while, and I'm sure you folk are more expert than I in this regard. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing him out of hand. Unlike yourself I've actually read the sources, I've even tried to reword the article so the prose and the sources match, but noloop's obvious POV is getting in the way of neutrality. May I also suggest that perhaps you should have actually read the sources before replying in this manner? --WebHamster 14:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You may indeed - in fact I think you just did! Here's my first suggestion. Instead of running "Great Satan" and "Death to America" together, stick closely to [66] - so leave Noloop's sentence as is about the chant, but add "Many Iranians admire the US but it is still known as the "Great Satan". Just abandon [67] as a source, [66] is all we need in this instance.

Surely there's a better source than an ad for a photo exhibition? Even there the relevant bit is "Though less numerous than those depicting the revolution and the Iran-Iraq war, the most thematically persistent murals have featured anti–United States and anti-Israeli images", which supports Noloops assertion that it doesn't strictly say there are many anti-American murals - just that there are less than those about the two wars. As for [70] the photo that came up there was of a sign saying "On that day when United States of America will praise us we should mourn" which could mean anything - but even if we breach WP:OR and interpret it negatively, it certainly isn't demonstrating that there are many murals, and at best shows that the "number of such murals" is not zero. Hardly compelling. Surely this can't be all that hard to get some better sources on? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Webhamster, thanks for informing me of what I don't understand. I'll return the favor. You are the only person objecting. So, getting consensus means talking to you, and that's all.
2. The most basic problem is that editors have given their own examples of anti-Americanism. But, anti-Americanism is a POV term. None of the sources on "Great Satan" say anything about anti-Americanism. To Iranians, maybe it is a reaction to American imperialism (as they see it), not prejudice. Comparable to "Axis of Evil" in the West. It's not for Wikipedia to take a position on that. Sources for examples of anti-Americanism need to use that term themselves, and they need to be notable. Noloop (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because I'm the only one arguing for it does not mean that you have consensus for removing it. So far you have none. Remember it's up to you to prove to additional editors that your arguments support the removal. So far it's me against, you for and Blippy on the fence. That does not make consensus in your favour. I don't need consensus in my favour as I'm not trying to change the status quo, I'm just trying to maintain it. As has been told you several times, the onus is on you to demonstrate the need for removal and then for multiple other editors to agree with you. That's what consensus means. I really despair sometimes.

Hmmm, let me see, is "The Great Satan" a compliment? I don't think so, it's a slur, therefore the name itself is a reflection of anti-American feeling. That's why it was used in the first place. Duh! --WebHamster 15:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

To Blippy: Actually I think that 67 is better than 66 but it does no harm to keep both in. I do agree that 70 is next to useless so I'll remove it. In any case I've provided an additional reference that refers to "murals being dotted all around Tehran" or words to that effect (I'm working from memory here). --WebHamster 15:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The editorial says: "The anti-American murals that dot the streets of Tehran have been part of a domestic and regional struggle to define the Iranian Revolution of 1978-1979, and not a literal declaration of foreign policy. " So, how do you go from an editorial expressing an opinion about "dotting" the streets, to a factual statement in an encyclopedia that there are "many" such murals? Noloop (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Because I can read English, you obviously can't. --WebHamster 16:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also supplied an additional reference that shows the "Death to America" chant was relevant up to at least 2007 --WebHamster 16:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't address a single thing I said. The ref you added for the murals is an opinion piece by someone who doesn't seem notable. It cannot be stated as fact. And, unless the person is notable, it shouldn't be listed as a notbale opinion. Why is the person notable? You have no consensus for your changes. Noloop (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck are you on about? The publisher is the one that has to be reliable, the ref does not have to be written by someone who is "notable". You are confusing WP:N with WP:RS. As it happens I don't have to address anything you say. I just have to supply references that meet WP:RS not ones that meet your approval. Please get over yourself. --WebHamster 16:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

1. It's an opinion. All statements about anti-Americanism are opinions. Do we cite the opinion of Joe Blow sitting at the bar? Presumably not. If we cite an opinion, the person with the opinion is supposed to be important in some way, i.e. notable.
2. The WP:RS you keep citing is for factual claims. If you cite an opinion, you need to attribute it. If we did that in this article, as it stands, it would be full statements like "According to [random person nobody has heard of] such-and-such mural is anti-American..." Noloop (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

{outdent}OK, perhaps it will be more productive if we go through Noloop's claims one by one here rather than getting into futile edit warring on the page itself. 1. It is implicit, without any need to interpolate, that the line from [66] about 'Great Satan' is reasonable as I presented it earlier. True it doesn't say anti-American explicitly, but it is set as a direct contrast to 'many Iranians admire the US', so it is clearly couching 'Great Satan' as a pejorative term. I believe it should be easy to get more along these lines, but I believe this is enough as is. If Noloop can provide countering RS's to refute this, please do so, otherwise I think the sentence I offered is balanced as well as sticking close to the source. 2. Let's dump the US Army source until a better one can be found that is unequivocally NPOV - they may be a very RS for other matters, but there is a shadow of doubt in this instance, so let's run with independent sources instead, of which there is currently one - more would be welcome. 3. I am still unhappy with the ad for a photo exhibition as a source, but he FPIP source looks good to me, however, if you can provide reasons to doubt it Noloop, please do so - note that you will have to come up with something better than claiming it is an opinion piece because FPIP are the publishers and have deemed it worth publishing, and they claim to be "more than 600 scholars, advocates, and activists seeking to make the United States a more responsible global partner". I think we can then use "The anti-American murals that dot the streets of Tehran have been part of a domestic and regional struggle to define the Iranian Revolution of 1978-1979" to put together a sentence along the lines of "Numerous anti-American murals dot the streets of Tehran". I believe that should resolve the issues under consideration. Thoughts? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You cannot say that source a says X so it must also mean that source a means Y see WP:SYNTH or WP:OR The sentence is not balanced as it says that a source makes a claim that is not implicit within the text of that source, it is up to someone inserting a claim to prove that claim, not up to the person contesting it to disprove it. By the way is FPIP noted for its fact checking? What FPIP claims about themsleves may not be true. Who are FPIP are they a respected organisation? It seems to be somekind of offshoot of the Institute for Policy Studies. Moreover whilst it may claim that it “more than 600 scholars, advocates, and activists” how many of these are indeed scholars? If the majority are advocates (whatever that may actually mean) and activist then this sight might in fact breach “publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature”. Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Blippy, you seem to saying that it is a fact that any pejorative directed at any aspect of the US is an example of anti-Americanism. If it's a fact, then we can report as fact that the term "Great Stan" is anti-American. I can't accept that. Statements of anti-Americanism are statements of opinion, not fact. That's doubly true because of the politicized nature of the term, as this article itself points out:

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

Given these aspects of the term, it's unacceptable for an encyclopedia to be telling readers what's anti-American.

2. It's not true all pejoratives directed at the US indicate prejudice or hatred of the US. The term "Axis of evil" has been in use as a reference to Iran for years. Does it indicate US cultural hate toward Iran? An encyclopedia simply can't 1) interpret that, and ii) state its interpretation as fact.

3. It seems simple. We find important people expressing opinions about anti-Americanism, and report the fact they have that opinion. We don't find sources for something we think is "obvious" anti-Americanism, and then report that something as a ffact of anti-Americanism.

4. Also, publisher reliability seems irrelevant for editorials, since publishers don't usually fact-check editorials. The author is understood to be representing only himself. Reliable publishers are full of op-ed pieces by Republicans saying there's no such thing as global warming for example. Those aren't reliable sources for anything. Noloop (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

They are classed as reliable sources on WP regardless of your own personal opinion, which seems to be the problem here. You are working from your own opinions, not WP rules. Incidentally FPIF is notable enough for its own article so there's a pretty good chance it can be classed as a RS, and so far it's 2:1 for that reference. Your move. And who came up with the strawman synth argument? No-one is synthesising anything. --WebHamster 20:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say the sources are unreliable. You haven't addressed a single thing I've said. Dump the strawman, feigned incomprehension, please. Noloop (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again your obsessive, opinionated pedantry beats common-sense to the punch. With that sort of outlook nothing I say will appease you so I'm not going to bother. And I haven't addressed anything you say because I make it a rule not to respond to total bollocks. --WebHamster 15:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Good to have your agreement that you're not responding to my points. In other words, not interested in consensus. So, go edit another article. Noloop (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I wondered where the problem lay. It seems it's your understanding of what consensus means. Consensus does not mean that noloop is right regardless of what else is said. I've read your points, I don't think they have merit, I accordingly ignored them. Listening to what you say and then going along with it is not gaining consensus regardless of what you may believe. I really think you need to look up "consensus" in a dictionary before you involve yourself in any more faux pas. --WebHamster 16:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said it means agreeing. It means not ignoring. You keep admitting you're not interested in consensus. So, you should edit a different article. Noloop (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

From Slatersteven's wikilink:

• "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research." [11] Noloop (talk) 15:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this needs to be taken elsewere now but for the record “'Great Satan' is reasonable as I presented it earlier. True it doesn't say anti-American explicitly, but it is set as a direct contrast to 'many Iranians admire the US', so it is clearly couching 'Great Satan' as a pejorative term.” Is synthasis, if the source does not specifically say it then an editor cannot infer it by the process of A & B are true therefore C must be true. I for one bleive that if the language continues then there should be action taken. Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Refining the bit in question

OK, I'm losing the plot here. I'm going to put together a version of what we've got so we can work on it specifically. As far as I can assess, based on the RS's we have, the following seems pretty reasonable;

The chant "Death to America"[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979[69] and numerous murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIP]. In Iran the US is still known as the 'Great Satan', however, many Iranians admire the US,[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are.

I'm conscious that the very last bit could be OR and would feel much more comfortable if we had a source to that effect. It's going to get pretty clunky if we need to preface anti-American with 'has been characterised/described as' - but I believe to do so addresses Noloops primary, and valid, concern that *we* are saying X is anti-American rather than saying that RS says X is anti-American. As far as FPIF is concerned I think it is unproductive to argue here about whether they are WP:RS - let's burrow away by ourselves on that point to find evidence either way and bring back RS's that demonstrate their credibility or otherwise. I think we give them the benefit of the doubt at this stage, as I'd much rather focus on the couple of sentences above, which we can easily adjust to reflect FPIP status once it's established. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just done some hunting and it seems Chomsky is regularly quoted or interviewed by FPIF - so I don't think we need to worry that they are pushing an Iranian anti-American (what does that mean again?!?) line. In fact there is something else in this reference that may be worth adding to the passage in question;

The chant "Death to America"[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979[69] and numerous murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIP]. In Iran the US is still known as the 'Great Satan', a phrase coined by Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1970's, however, many Iranians admire the US,[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are. It has been suggested that under Ayatollah Khomeini anti-Americanism was little more than a way to distinguish between domestic supporters and detractors.[FPIF]

What do you think? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That works for me, so it's a given that noloop will object. --WebHamster 08:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

;-) It's been pretty exasperating for you guys, but hopefully Noloop will be satisfied with this too. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's no different from what's already there, and addresses none of my objections. No passage should be telling readers what they should think of as an anti-American act. Period. It's a political point-of-view. How did we get from a source that says the murals "dot" the city to a statement that the murals are "numerous"? I didn't say FPIF was unreliable or biased; that's a strawman argument of WebHamster's. I said the source was an opinion piece, so not a source for statements of fact. It doesn't matter how reliable the publisher is. This is like finding an opinion piece in the New York Times saying there is no global warming, and then stating as fact there is no global warming because the NYT is a reliable source. Opinion pieces are sources for nothing except the fact that that author expressed that opinion. That is, in fact, what our policy on references states. Noloop (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Dotted about" means there are more than one and infers there are many, at least in the English language anyway. It also means that it's an observation of fact, regardless of whether it's in an opinion piece or not. It's not the author's opinion, it's the author's observation. And please quit with the outright lies. Your edit summary states that consensus had not been reached on whether the FPIF is a reliable source. That to me reads that you don't think it is. So if you no longer have an objection to it being classed as a reliable source I shall put it back at it now appears we have a consensus for its inlusion. --WebHamster 15:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No doted about means there are some, not many (check the dictionary it means "A large or considerable number" or " a quantifier that can be used with count nouns and is often preceded by `as or `too or `so or `that; amounting to a large but indefinite number; "many temptations"; "the temptations are many"; "a good many"; "a great many"; "many directions". So the current text says that there are large number (using the meaning of many) murals, the source does not support this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually "doted" means "loved" if one wishes to level the same sort of pedantry noloop has been using. But if you look above to Blippy's suggested text "many" is not used. "Numerous" and "dotted" is used which is supported by the reference. It is that text which I have been referring to today. Any other English lessons you would like to hand out to this Northerner? --WebHamster 16:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitions of numerous 1. [adj] - amounting to a large indefinite number. The source makes no such claim. Source 74 states that they are less numerous then those depicting the Iran Iraq war, but does not say how many there are. Neither does source 75.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That is just one definition of numerous. Numerous can be used to describe any multiple number without being definite about the specific number, i.e. it's an arbitrary term about an arbitrary number. "Numerous" and "dotted about" are not mutually exclusive. --WebHamster 16:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is the dictionary definition, it carries a clear impresion of a large number, not a few dotted about. thus cl;ealry loads the line towards a given POV (that there are large number of Murals). A neutral POV phrase might be "murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIP]." Why is this so unacceptable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs)

It's just one dictionary definition, one used because that one that suits your argument. But regardless I don't have any objection to losing the numerous/many/gajillions/fucking loads of 'em/one or two mate... etc And your wording isn't unacceptable, I wouldn't argue against its inclusion. What made you think I thought it was unacceptable? No-one had yet come up with that wording so please stop jumping to conclusions. --WebHamster 17:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Then I would sugest you provide the other meanings that I have failed to find in at least 5 dictionaries. I would also sugest that you refrain from accustaions of cheery picking, and to refrain from swearing it is not constructive and may give offense. The new source would seem to me to make it rather clear that ‘great Satan; is not a specifically anti-American tern, it is applied to enemies of the Islamic republic regardless of their ‘Americanism’. Again this new source does not say how many murals, it certainly does not say there are many of them. So as now have now agreed on this new wording can we have a agrement on this at leart from Noloop?Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User WebHamster has now demonstrated that he does object to the line that I proposed, and had made edits and changes that he claim wer agrred to but never were.Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Given your previous pedantry about definitions I'm surprised that you are confused with the term "objects". I didn't object to your version, I don't object to it now. I just think my version is better. It covers all the points and meets that which is written in the refs. I also didn't say my text was agreed upon. I said wit was reworded per the discussion, ie the points raised, eg removal of many/numerous, the use of dotted. The only addition I made was the state-sponsored bit which is covered in the refs. Now are you going to keep lying and distorting the facts? --WebHamster 20:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As well as the addition of all over the city, which im not backed up by the sources, in fact one source makes it cleer that they only occupy the main roads. Moreover you admit that you made additions that were not discused.Slatersteven (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Canadian anti-americanism

I have a hard time believing that the Canadian viewpoint is not mentioned here. Canada is the birthplace of anti-americanism (Empire Loyalists) and must still be the most consistent in these beliefs. While Canadians do not burn flags, they are Canadians after all, smoldering resentment is stronger in Canada than any other place I have ever travelled to. The national sport of Canada is not hockey if one measures by minutes of water cooler talk, it is anti-americanism. Any American who moves to Canada is considered an American forever... something that is not true of any other nationality. Why? Live there for awhile and you'd see that the metaphor of "sleeping with the elephant" is not too far from the truth. To quote former Mexican president de la Madrid, 'so far from God, so close to the united States", although of course he was referring to Mexico...

All of that is your POV. In fact, the majority of this article is just the POV of Wikipedia editors. The whole thing is a travesty of neutrality. Noloop (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is data to back up this POV. Canada is probably the most instinctual anti-American country on this planet. It is also the only country that makes laws with the aim of denying Americans employment, particularly in higher education. There needs to be a whole section on Canada, and we need to be honest here, and I hope that Canadians are honest about this for a change. We are not going to get anywhere through denying that Canada has a problem.

I do not think that you quite grasp how Wikipedia works. If you think that "Canada is probably the most instinctual anti-American country on this planet", it is up to you to provide sources to back up such a claim. My feelings are that you will have a hard time finding any reliable sources for that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I started this topic and I am glad it sparks some discussion. I agree that there needs to be references for anything that gets into the main article, but unfortunately there probably has never been research to confirm or deny statements like "Canada is probably the most instinctual anti-American country on this planet" because it is too controversial. I agree with this statement but so what. I also agree that there needs to be a whole section on Canada (and the historical evolution of anti-americanism in Canada), I agree that we need to be completely honest about it (and I am Canadian). I completely disagree that it is important to see it as a problem. It is simply a national phenomenon with many causes, some historical and some emotional, some valid and some invalid. -KG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.135.182 (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Another problem is the lack of a definition of anti-americanism, in the article as well as in this talk page section. So far it sounds more like POV (and OR at best), which should probably be taken to another place (as per WP:NOTFORUM). --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Canada is definitely NOT the most instinctual anti-American country on this planet! There are many countries that would like to lay a claim to the title, with Iran in front by a whisker over Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam, closely followed by Cuba, Russia, Syria, Spain, Germany, France and dozens of other countries! PomsWin (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Where Americans are concerned, Canadians are the nastiest people on the planet. Canadians are obsessed with the idea of hurting America and Americans. They feel this can best be accomplished by stopping all exports of oil, gas, water, and electricity to the US. Now, the Canadians wouldn't do this without a good reason; such as an American Border Guard telling a Canadian to get out of his vehicle without saying please. This is a true example. Check out the CBC Website. Canadians love to respond to news articles. That's where you'll find this stuff. In connection with the export stuff above, Canadians are sent into paroxysms of ecstasy visualizing tens of millions of "Americans shivering in their cold dark homes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.229.144 (talk) 12:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to say, Canadians feel that cutting off those exports will bring America to it's knees in a few days, with a valuable lesson learned. No other outcome is allowed to intrude itself into their thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.37.229.144 (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe we need an article on anti-Canadianism here in the United States judging by some opinions here. 129.2.12.84 (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Fresh Start

WebHamster was blocked for 5 days, and SlaterSteven for 1.

Let's start with the most basic question: Is saying something is anti-American a political point of view? Noloop (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This is only my own imperfect POV, however I think that it's a little too specific to call it only a political point of view. It can be considered as such in certain circumstances (ie prominient politician speaks out against anti-American attitudes in the middle east); saying something is anti-American can also obviously exist as a non-political viewpoint (ie in an academic sense). Anyway, that's my interpretation at least. Iciac (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an unfortunate outcome. I thought we were making progress here. Saying something is anti-American may well be a political statement, but is *definitely* not a political statement to say that a RS says something is anti-American, especially when we are also raising the issues around the political nature of describing something as anti-American. So getting back to the sentence;

The chant "Death to America"[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979[69] and murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIP]. In Iran the US is still known as the 'Great Satan', a phrase coined by Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1970's, however, many Iranians admire the US,[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are. It has been suggested that under Ayatollah Khomeini anti-Americanism was little more than a way to distinguish between domestic supporters and detractors.[FPIF]

Can we have some specific, detailed feedback on any concerns with this? As far as I can tell it sticks very closely to sources and does not call anything anti-American, and dropping the disputed (needlessly in my view) word 'numerous' leaves us with a pretty coherent, accurate passage. Responding to Noloop's comments; "No passage should be telling readers what they should think of as an anti-American act. Period." This passage does not do that. It says that other RS's have characterised the murals as anti-American. It does not state 'Great Satan' is anti-American, and it balances the position by explaining the use of anti-Americanism within Iran as being more for domestic purposes than anything else. So it makes no political statement, and I believe is very NPOV. "The source [is] an opinion piece, so not a source for statements of fact." The piece is used to convey the fact that there are murals which have been described as anti-American. Noloop has argued all along that this is an opinion, so it is very apt to cite an opinion that demonstrates that characterisation. NOTE: we are not saying that it is a fact that the murals are anti-American, we are saying it is a fact that they have been *described* as anti-American - as has been done in the opinion piece. FPIF is not in dispute as a RS, so that bit doesn't matter. Any other concerns? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to explicitly say something is anti-American in order to run into POV problems, although this article does a lot of explicit saying. Listing all these polls and various slogans, in the article "Anti-Americanism," is an obvious suggestion that these things are examples of anti-Americanism. Otherwise why mention them? Are we suggesting they're examples of Fruit Loops? Mentioning that an importnat or prominent source has expressed the opinion that something is anti-American is the right way to do it, but this article rarely does that. It's important to specify the source, and not use passive voice. Also, doesn't it seem odd that the Iranian side is nowhere mentioned? Noloop (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any specific concerns with the passage under consideration at the moment Noloop? We can tackle the rest of the article later, but let's get this bit sorted out first, ok? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the passage as sugested works (but perhaps wew should also include the line about state sponserhsip, thus there will be no need for webmaster to revert becasue of the lack of a a referanceed line). But Noloops concearns about this page ingeneral (and this passage in particular) are valid. This page is about anti-Americanism, and so should only be about what a RS considers to be that, not what an editor does which seems to be the case at the momnent. Now the murals are are called are called anti-American or anti-USA (pretty much the same thing).Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a YES from you Slatersteven, yes? I'm not quite sure what you mean about the state sponsorship line - can you add it in to the passage here so we can see how it looks? I realise Noloop has numerous concerns, but ultimately we will have to tackle them one by one, so I'd suggest we stick with this one till we get it right and then work from there. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been stating my explicit concerns with the passage in question ever day for the last month. Noloop (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That isn't a very helpful response Noloop. Please have a look at the following passage and share the *specific* amendments you think are needed, if any. None of us has a magic wand to fix the entire article to your liking in one hit, we're going to have to tackle it one piece at a time - or at least that's what I'm attempting to do. I have come here as a neutral editor, so if you're unwilling to work with me, then I don't hold much hope for your broader complaints getting resolved to your satisfaction. Of the 4 editors commenting on this passage you are the only one yet to voice specific examples of how to modify it.

The chant "Death to America"[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979[69] and murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIF]. In Iran the US is still known as the 'Great Satan', a phrase coined by Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1970's, however, many Iranians admire the US,[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are. It has been suggested that under Ayatollah Khomeini anti-Americanism was little more than a way to distinguish between domestic supporters and detractors.[FPIF]

Cheers, Blippy (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"The chant "Death to America"[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979[69] and state sponsored murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIF]. In Iran the US is still known as the 'Great Satan', a phrase coined by Ayatollah Khomeini in the 1970's, however, many Iranians admire the US,[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are. It has been suggested that under Ayatollah Khomeini anti-Americanism was little more than a way to distinguish between domestic supporters and detractors.[FPIF]" is what I meant by a li9ne refering to the (alledged) state sponserhip of the murals. Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If what I've said every day for the last month isn't very helpful, then I'm not sure what to say. The problem with the passage is that it doesn't identify anybody making an important allegation of anti-Americanism. The sources either don't mention anti-Americanism at all, or they do so in passing. When the sources do mention AA, we report that in passive voice, not identifying them. Characterized by whom? Suggested by whom? By one reporter nobody has heard of? By an expert on the Middle East? A graduate student talking about her photo exhibit? Dick Cheney? We have no idea whether AA is considered a reasonable, non-biased way of describing Iran among scholars, but the passage suggests otherwise. Delete the whole thing. Noloop (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The section that we are dealing with is: "Contemporary Regional Attitudes", subsection "Middle East". Presumably a reader is going to expect to find material from RS's which reflect contemporary Middle Eastern attitudes about anti-Americanism. Please suggest an alternative introduction to this section Noloop so we can better see what you mean. If you have already said all this during the last month I apologise, but I have neither the time or energy to go hunting for it. I would appreciate you offering a version that you would find acceptable so that we can move this thing forward now. Let's take this as an opportunity to prepare a draft that would allow us to "delete the whole thing". Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Which sources in this section actually mention anti-Americanism? As far as I can tell, virtually none of them. So what are they doing in the article? The section is junk. Noloop (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Which bit of your reply is your version of what should replace it? I am already entertaining your suggestion to delete it all Noloop, now it's your turn to offer what we replace it with - otherwise it will simply stay there as is. I understand you don't like what's there, now please share what you think should be there. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You were invited as a Third Opinion because of WebHamster's trolling, which has now been (at least temporarily) ended. Maybe you are no longer needed here. Aside from not paying attention to anything I say--as you seem to freely admit--what do you try to accomplish as a Third Opinion? I have edited the section to leave the one clear, developed attribution of anti-Americanism from a clearly prominent source. Noloop (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry my efforts at providing a neutral perspective have not met with your approval. I think you are being quite unreasonable now and I am starting to understand, and experience firsthand, some of the frustration you appear to have generated prior to my arrival. You are not operating in a collaborative manner, and are effectively spitting in the eye of someone who came here with an open mind to lend a helping hand. Alienating editors is not an effective way of convincing people you are right, neither is ignoring their attempts to understand what you are trying to say in order to better work with you. All you end up doing is demonstrating to any other neutral party that you are unreasonable. Good luck and I hope you can start to see how unproductive your current approach is. Cheerio, Blippy (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Please go away. Intentionally or not, you are acting like a troll. Your Third Opinion is no longer needed. A Third Opinion is for resolving a dispute between two editors, not to become a disputant and revert edits yourself. Noloop (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If I may step in, Noloop I would advise you to calm down. Blippy was just trying to stay cool headed, while you accused him of trolling. Also, most likely unintentional, you have been avoiding the answer. Blippy has said that would be helpful if you could show him where a specific comment is at, as most of your answers have been unhelpful to answering that.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't now how I can get more specific than actually making the edits I specifically propose. I said Bippy is acting like a troll because he is. A Third Opinion shouldn't be making personal remarks, shouldn't be reverting edits, and generally shouldn't become an active editor when he's supposed to be neutral. Far from being neutral, he's acting like WebHamster's attorney. He reverted my "bold edit," (which would be fine from an involved editor), but reverted to WebHamster's edit-war version. I don't know what the second part of your comment is asking--I think there are some typos or skipped words. I've made my position clear, over and over and over again, and I'm sick and tired of people complaining I haven't been clear and then, when I repeat the points, complaining I'm repeating myself. This was a standard WebHamster trick, Blippy is coming darn close to it, and I'm fed up with it. My specific proposals (I've said this 20 times): Sources that don't mention anti-Americanism aren't legitimate. Sources that are opinion pieces aren't legitimate as factual references. Sources that are opinion pieces by non-notable people, like a student discussing her pictures, aren't legitimate. Sources that only mention anti-Americanism in passing should be used sparingly. The material I removed was removed for these reasons, which I've explained 20 times before with no reasoned reply from anyone. Noloop (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who started it or whatnot. This is getting ridiculous. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The comment about Great Satan is one example that has been pointed out. It has been applied to both Britain and the US and as such is not a specifically Anti-American phrase. As such (and as you most editors seem to admit its not) then it should not be in an article that is about Anti-Americanism otherwise it can be seen as trying to draw the inference that the phrase is Anti-American without actually saying so (because non of the sources back the claim). So until better sources are found perhaps this will meet with all users agreement. How about?

“Death to America"[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979[69] and state sponsored murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIF]. As well as other phrases often represented as anti-American, however, many Iranians admire the US,[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are. It has been suggested that under Ayatollah Khomeini anti-Americanism was little more than a way to distinguish between domestic supporters and detractors.[FPIF]"

I would also have to suggest that editors calm down and explain what they object to, and offer constructive alternatives.

I've probably stated my objections to that passage 50 times on this Talk page. Noloop (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a reset to before July and then work from there?Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop

We are starting over. And don't bring any accusations or other crud over here. I mean that to everyone involved here. Just calm down and discuss things calmly. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

“Death to America"[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979[69] As well as other phrases often represented as anti-American. State sponsored murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIF], however, many Iranians admire the US,[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are. It has been suggested that under Ayatollah Khomeini anti-Americanism was little more than a way to distinguish between domestic supporters and detractors.[FPIF]"]

That’s two more references.Slatersteven (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

So I take it then that if there are no objections then an admin can replace the current text with this tomorrow?Slatersteven (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Jesus. It would be helpful if those who are supposed to aid in dispute resolution: 1) Remained neutral, rather than becoming active editors of the article 2) Spent more than 3 seconds researching matters, rather than leaping to judgements. I don't know why Abce2 has suddenly shown up at this article. He/she was initially part of my attempt at dispute resolution with WebHamster, as was Blippy. Suddenly, both have started reverting edits and making pesonal remarks, without no appparent knowledge of the recent discussion or edits. There was no edit warring after WebHamster was blocked. I made one revert of a part of Blippy's revert that I thought was accidental. Blippy made a revert of a "bold edit", as he/she is entitled. Abce2 then made the most unconstructive revert, apparently not really noticing the history, and then requested the page be protected... That's it...and now the page is protected for two weeks. Noloop (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a he. Otherwise, no comment. I have other things to do.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If you don't have the time to justify your actions here, why are you still here? Noloop (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stay focused. I meant I don't have time to get off-topic.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

past debates

I've been gone, so where is this conversation now? I think I missed something.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No I just missed out a source (the above passage would have to be copied from edit view to work in the article). At the moment (as far as I can see) this parqagraph is not more or less usable (formating asside).Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant did something happen while I was gone?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Only a spat about sockpupets. As well as the useral objections based on no real grounds.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And Noloop accusing us of being trolls as I've read, correct?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I only thought he called Blippy a troll, but I may have missed something.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait that was on the talk for reliable sources. This is very similar to another user I've seen. Strange.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thought I would start a new subject as the above one is getting a bit daft. Noloop has called Blippy a troll and sockpuppet here, and me and you a troll elsewere. Apart from that things have been prety much as they were. As to similarities to other users I cannot comment on that with out knowing to whome the troll tolls.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was talking to myself. But where getting off topic, aren't we?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least I'm not a sockpuppet of everyone. I've already been that.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's getting pretty apparent that noloop's MO is to call anyone who disagrees with him a troll. Oh and of course anyone else who stands in his way of his agenda to deny that there is actually no such thing as anti-Americanism. After all the North Americas are such a perfect entity! --WebHamster 17:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've got to agree to the first part. It's strange how often this kind of thing is starting to happen.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's strange how much trolling is starting to happen on this article. For example, this entire section. Noloop (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

'whacks forehead' you don't get it do you? Letting me show you someone who kept accusing people, like you have. User talk:Frei Hans.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps its now time to take this elsewere.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But where are you talking about?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

the (or a ) users talk page, as we are now clearly discusing Noloop and not just the edit history.Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 17:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Whose?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

His would be the best option.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You can start, I'm about to go eat lunch.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sooooooooo...Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I said that this should be taken elsewere. At this mone tin time (for reasons I do not intend to go into) I am not willing to start up a slaging match on an other users talk page. He has accused me of being a troll once, and as far as I am aware that is not in and of its self against the rules, do correct me if I am wrong. Moreover Nollops actions seem to me to just mirror other editors whoes activites seem to be tolerated, so I am not going to treat hnim by different standerds to otehr users.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Whats it all about Americi

This page is about (I thought) what is percived (by those who use the phrase) to be Aniti-Americanism. Therefore that is what the page should contain, what those who uswe the phrase defiine as anti-americanism, but that is all it should include. Not things tyhat an editor thinks are anti-americaism. So somnething should only be included (and it should make it clear who) if it is defined by the source as an example. There should however also be caveated of somekind to make it clear that this is an opinion not a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think your additions are good, and I've added in Noloop's point about Great Satan, so we now have;

'Death to America'[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979,[69] along with other phrases often represented as anti-American. State sponsored murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIF][10][11], however, many Iranians admire the US[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are. It has been suggested that under Ayatollah Khomeini anti-Americanism was little more than a way to distinguish between domestic supporters and detractors,[FPIF] and even the phrase 'Great Satan' which has previously been associated with anti-Americanism[ref here] appears to now signify either the US and/or the UK.[ref for this?]

How does that look? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, I would go as far to say that we should insert his and look for the refs (using Citation needed tags) later.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It violates policies on neutral point-of-view, accurate representation of sources, and balanced weight. It uses weasel words. I have explained the exact way it does this 20 or 30 times. Blippy, if you have no interest in this article (as you said), and the dispute that initiated your Third Opinion has been resolved in another way, why are you still here? Noloop (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see the line about death to America is hardley POV (its difficlut to see it as anything but Anti-American), but poerhaps we should put in a citation needed tag in order top achive conesnsus. The line about murals is sourced and not POV, and makes it clear that these are charactrised as anti-American (which is all that is required, this is about what people percive as anti-american not what is). The only issue therefore is to my mind) Great Satan, and as long as we put in citation needed tags, and agree to remove that term should none be forthcomming then I see no problom. Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not appropriate for this article to call anything anti-American. If it is "obviously" anti-American, then (by definition of "obvious") it should be easy to find a notable source expressing that opinion. The line about murals is not sourced in the right way. The passage uses weasel words (passive voice) to hide the fact that the people expressing this opinion are non-scholars and non-notable: in short, not valid. Phrasing like this is POV: "it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are". Noloop (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be notable, they have to meet RS. OK try this http://books.google.com/books?id=1_NcjspbPRwC&pg=PA276&dq=the+anti+american+phrase+death+to+america it states that the phrase “death to America” was shouted during anti-US rallies it also says that Great Satan is an anti-US term, now have a source for that. We also have this http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/may/seventh_majles_28504.shtml odd for someone to respond to a call for anti-American slogans with one that isn’t. http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0210/iran.html has this to say “Three decades later the oft-chanted slogan 'Death to America' remains relevant, especially since the ascent to the presidency in 2005 of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a vocal advocate of anti-Americanism.” Again this clearly (not indirectly) links the phrase to anti-Americanism. As does this http://books.google.com/books?id=NboVl-CeYs0C&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=anti+american+slogans+%2B+iran+%2B+%E2%80%9Cdeath+to+America%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=J3-YxpYYUr&sig=jMFZo1kQgoiuV-ZhSRy15KWUSHM&hl=en&ei=P6BsSv-DD9OMjAfEk_ieCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4. So whilst we have no sources that say it is anti-American we have sources that say it is often used in circumstances of anti-Americanism. Now there is an element of Synthesis to this. This one however is rather more explicate http://www.turkishweekly.net/columnist/1805/let-39-s-fill-in-the-blanks-in-the-speech-of-iran-39-s-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad.html “The Islamic Republic of Iran’s anti-zionist and anti-american approach is not a new thing. The “death to America” and “death to Israel” slogans exist since the first days of the revolution.” Makes it rather plain that it is an anti-American phrase. We also have this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/02/usa.iran says “Cries of "marg bar Amrika" (death to America) no longer fill the air, but in the shadow of the Den of Spies - formerly known as the US embassy - echoes of an equally atavistic anti-Americanism still resonate.” Well that makes it clear its an anti-American phrase.

Now as to poorly written sources, it might be helpful of you were to show us how they should be written. Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Sources of OPINION have to be notable: they have to be experts or prominent in some way. We don't cite the opinions of Joe Blow With a Blog. Why? Because Joe Blow With a Blog isn't notable. A graduate student making a passing comment while describing her pictures is no different from Joe Blow With a Blog. Citing the opinion of a staff reporter for the Associated Press isn't much different. Statements about anti-Americanism are statements of opinion, not fact.
• Since they are opinions, not facts, we put those opinions in articles with clear attribution. Example: "According to Paul Hollander, blah blah is anti-American.[1]" We don't say: "Blah blah is anti-American [1]" where [1] is a Hollander ref. We also don't say "Blah blah has been characterized as anti-American. [1]"--those are weasel words. Noloop (talk) 20:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

What Wikipedia policy says about sourcing:

• News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text.
• Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact....When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion.
• The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research. Noloop (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

“Death to America"[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979 ref http://www.turkishweekly.net/columnist/1805/let-39-s-fill-in-the-blanks-in-the-speech-of-iran-39-s-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad.html </ref>[69] As well Great Satan shouted at anti-American rallies. State sponsored murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIF], however, many Iranians admire the US,[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are. It has been suggested that under Ayatollah Khomeini anti-Americanism was little more than a way to distinguish between domestic supporters and detractors.[FPIF]"]

In this version the sources for Murals come from news paper articles, not opinion pieces, I have also added a new one As the rules say an opinion piece is separate from an article, these are articles not opinion pieces. For death to America I have now put in place two sources, one at least (I am not sure about the Turkish source) is a high end UK newspaper. Great Satan comes from a book, not a newspaper or a blog. As to your second point perhaps you should have quoted it in full for the missing section says “A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers.” The sources I have given above do not fall into this catargery, they are actual articles not editorials repoprting on evetns in Terahn. Also please do not shout. As to your third point, that has been addressed by the fact that my sources are not opinion pieces from blogs or students talking about their holiday. Reporters filing reports are RS, as the line above makes clear its really only considered opinion if it’s a editorial piece, it is your opinion that they are opinion pieces. I have left the last part in to enable other eds to find better sources.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• It's getting hard to check this stuff, because the refs don't work as links. It looks like some of the refs are just lists of search hits, which isn't a source. It may not even be the same list in a month.
• Wikipedia cannot go around calling people anti-American. It's just not appropriate. So this is a problem: "As well Great Satan shouted at anti-American rallies"
• I have no idea what your "shouting" comment is about. If you mean the bold, that is in the original source.
• It is not just my opinion that anti-Americanism is an opinion. This article itself says so--it is an often incoherent opinion, sometimes propaganda, according to this article. Have you read this article? Noloop (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

“Death to America"[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979

http://www.turkishweekly.net/columnist/1805/let-39-s-fill-in-the-blanks-in-the-speech-of-iran-39-s-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/02/usa.iran

[69] As well Great Satan shouted at anti-American rallies http://books.google.com/books?id=1_NcjspbPRwC&pg=PA276&dq=the+anti+american+phrase+death+to+america . State sponsored murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIF]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/12/2541133.htm

ttp://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/01/03/usatcov-iranchanges.htm

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1910361,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/01/22/iran.politics.people/

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/12/25/iranian_citizens_yearning_for_us_to_start_a_dialogue/

http://www.upi.com/News_Photos/view/2837ca86dfedeaa1dcddf213d48c6e25/mps/AMERICAN-EMBASSY-IN-TEHRAN-FOR-SALE/

, however, many Iranians admire the US,[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are. It has been suggested that under Ayatollah Khomeini anti-Americanism was little more than a way to distinguish between domestic supporters and detractors.[FPIF]"]

Try this book http://books.google.com/books?id=WL-IYCCe58EC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=anti+american+slogans+%2B+iran+%2B+death&source=bl&ots=zmrfCPK38n&sig=dH5fMDLoMwPal93nrHeTYVu9l40&hl=en&ei=Kw1vSo7iAtefjAev68GQBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4 pretty unequivocal that. Now you are correct this page is about what people perceive as Anti-American (as I said above). As such there is no need for every claim and sentence to have this mentioned its mentioned in the lead (perhaps not forcefully enough). It is up to the reader to determine if the claim that something (that a source) claimed to be Anti-American is true or not, it is not for us to determine that, this article is about a claim, not a fact. As I said more counter arguments are needed, so insert them. That is why the line that said “phrases often represented as anti-American” was there to make it clear that all of these sources are only stating what they believe to be true but something that is not an empirical fact. Now if you want the line to read

“State sponsored murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIF] according to ABC Austrailia, USAtoday, Time magazine, CNN, Boston Globe and UPI“ lets go for it but it looks a little bloated top me. This is not one persons or one organisations opinion. Shall I find more or leave it at that?Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What, exactly, are you asking? The sources you list, that I checked, just aren't very relevant. A list of google search hits isn't a source. In some cases, the sources don't support the text. The link for anti-American murals is about a single mural--and its removal [12]. Those articles that do express an opinion about anti-Americanism need to be directly attributed. That is part of the policy on citing opinions. Most of them mention "anti-American" in passing, as an adjective used once or twice in an article not focussed on anti-Americanism as a topic. The photo of the embassy for sale just mentions "anti-American" in the caption--you don't even know who the author is. It looks like you did some quick googling, and now want to turn the results into sources without actually reading the sources carefully. Finding important, relevant sources entails more than just googling keywords. Noloop (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well did you want me to frind more sources, well I have (see below). A list of google search hits is not there. Which sources do not support the text? The Link? There are 6 links for anti-American murals not one. Nor do these sources breach RS as they are not opinion peaces but news articles. This is not part of wikipedias policies (as your attempt to get it made so on makes clear), a clear expression you accept that its not against the rules to use sources such as this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources&diff=304353764&oldid=303690977 the last replyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources&diff=304795453&oldid=304695782 seems to imply your premise was wrong . Nor does the fact that mention them in passing preclude them for use under Wiki’s rules. Nor is googling precluded from use by Wiki, as long as the sources you find do not breach RS these do not, some may be open to question but then lets do you a favour and provide those few more I promised.

A book http://books.google.com/books?id=3SapTk5iGDkC&pg=PA351&lpg=PA351&dq=anti+american+murals+%2B+tehran&source=bl&ots=8rXLf5Og6p&sig=129nW7LNp6GmYJwVa_PJoUC3sRs&hl=en&ei=fEFwSv_WCt6hjAfm4PCiBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6 lets have another newspaper article as well http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23393411-details/Iran:+A+nation+of+nose+jobs,+not+nuclear+war/article.do Lets have another shall we http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/08/world/old-animosities-aside-americans-are-touring-iran.html another book http://books.google.com/books?id=IKRq123CSlIC&pg=PR9&dq=anti+americanism++%2B+iran+%2B+murals and one last book http://books.google.com/books?id=yqJIlo6dQ0MC&pg=PA9&dq=anti+americanism++%2B+iran+%2B+murals Yes I googled these, but this does not invalidate then. So we now have news paper articles and book saying the same thing, that there are anti-American murals in Tehran.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask for more sources, I asked for better sources. Sources that are actually about anti-Americanism, instead of mentioning it briefly in passing. Sources expressing opinions about anti-Americanism that come from prominent, scholarly, or somehow notable people. Not people nobody has heard of, or staff reporters for AP not following the same POV guidelines as Wikipedia.

Anti-Americanism is an opinion, so all our statements about it need to follow the guidelines for opinions. We don't use weasel words (passive voice). We directly state "So-and-so says XYZ is anti-American" where So-and-so is someone who matters.

I didn't say googling is invalid. I said a list of google search hits is not a source. Noloop (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

AP was not my only sources and the other sources are not opinion pieces but news reports about Tehran. Nor is there a requirement for sources top be from “prominent, scholarly, or somehow notable people”, nor is there a preclusion on using sources written by people that “people nobody has heard of”. So I would request that you please stop objecting to theses sources based upon rules that do not exist.

Yes anti-Americanism is an opinion, but expressions of Anti-Americanism may not be if a reliable source (one that does not breach wikipedias rules) says X has stated Y is anti-American then is a sourced fact, not an opinion, unless you can find a source from y saying that it is not anti-American. Can you find a source that says these murals are not anti-American, if not then the people that drew them do not contend that they are not anti-American, only you do. We only say its opinion if its an opinion piece in a newspaper, not a book.

I did not provide a list of google hits as a source.

I agree with S here. Anti-Americanism is an opinion, but like racism it is phenomenon that can be reported on in Wikipedia. RS's that state that something is anti-American can be cited here as evidence that the thing they refer to is considered anti-American. So if an article in a RS describes X as anti-American, regardless of who the author is, regardless of whether it's an opinion piece, then the FACT that they have said X is anti-American is evidence that can be used in WP that X is considered anti-American - even if it is only that author who holds that opinion. We don't need notable authors, we need RS's. So how about some productive drafting now? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. The position you describe is an attempt to rationalize away the provision against "weasel words." The position you're describing, in which you neither have to find expert commentators nor directly attribute the quote, would result in Wikipedia saying things like "The Holocaust is considered to have never happened." Why don't you actually read the article???? The article itself makes it very clear that this is not a coherent "phenomenon that can be reported on in Wikipedia":

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

This is the exact opposite of a clearly defined "phenomenon that can be reported on" in an encyclopedic fashion. We can only report what people have said, and that has to be done with an eye toward the propaganda elements described above, an eye toward due weight, and an eye toward whether the opinions we're reporting are significant. Noloop (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Nor does it state that statements that call something anti-American are automatically suspect of bias. Nor are all the sources I have provided American, as such the claim that it is used by America to criticise its opponents not valid. There is no rule on Wikipedia requiring expert sources, just reliable ones, I would again ask you to please stop trying to enforce rules that do not exist. Nor have I used any direct quotes (please stop trying to use rules that are not applicable). Whilst the use of the term is disputed that does not mean that a given fact (not opinion pieces but with book or newspaper article source) is untrue (unless you can find a source to say its contested). Wikipedias rules do not require atriputation of sources when dealing with RS (which the sources I have provided are). No weasel words are being used.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say we suspect them of bias: that would also be POV. I said statements about anti-Americanism are opinions. They are highly political opinions, very prone to cultural bias. How many Iranians are editing this article's characterization of Iranians? Attribution is required when citing opinions. My concerns are with how we are presenting opinion, not whether the sources are reliable. Wording like "...is considered anti-American by some" is a textbook example of weasel wording. Noloop (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop, you are confusing FRINGE with RS. Extreme fringe views need not be reported, hence there being a possible case for not including RS's saying the Holocaust didn't happen in the Holocaust article. But if the view has some following, and RS coverage, then it should be included: hence the Holocaust Denial page. It may be inappropriate to talk about anti-Americanism in the way you're describing on, say, the Iranian page, but on the page setup explicitly to discuss the matter it is completely appropriate. Attributions always have to be made in a reference, so I'm not sure what you're talking about there. But the only restriction is on the source being a reliable one. We don't have to filter out anything beyond that level. Your example of "...is considered anti-American by some" is fine if it is backed by the appropriate references, although the weasel element can be avoided completely by wording it "...has been described as anti-American." So how about we stop theorising about the whole thing and get down to some editing of the actual text? From memory we now have one passage that has obtained consensus, yes? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand anything I say. I haven't said anything is a fringe theory. Fringe theories, usually, are about factual matters--whether something really happened, whether the Earth is flat, etc. I'm talking about opinion, not factual matters, as I've said oh about 50 times now. Please review the guidelines for weasel words and attributing opinions. You example "...has been described as anti-American." is equally weaselly. You have to say "So-and-so has described such-and-such as anti-American" to comply with guidelines on attributing opinions and avoiding weasel words. Noloop (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong as usual. It's perfectly okay to say "Some people have decided that A is B", then stick the reference after the prose. This reference is then there to show who the "some people" are. It's up to the reader to decide on whether they want to follow it up. It is not necessary to add to the prose the names of the "some people". You really should try to understand the rules before you attempt to lecture others. --WebHamster 17:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

{outdent} Maybe you don't understand what you say either :-) You brought in Holocaust denial as an example of non-expert opinion being excluded from the Holocaust page. This is not the case. Holocaust denial is excluded because of its fringe theory status, not because it is a non-expert opinion. What we need to do here is collect RS's that make statements relevant to anti-Americanism. If a RS publishes an opinion piece that claims Tehran is dotted with anti-American murals then we can use it to state that numerous murals scattered around Tehran have been described as anti-American. That is the fact we report, that there are several mural around Tehran which someone published in a RS believes to be anti-American. No weasel wording, just stating the fact. If the view is a common one, then it should be quite simple to find numerous examples that we can cite. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Except that the sources provided are not opinion pieces, they are newspaper reports as well as a few books. I have found a large number of sources repeating the statement. No source has been offered challenging the fact, as such it can be said that not only do those making then statement think that the murals are anti-American but so do those who are responsible for them. Moreover the paragraph did indeed say that these were state sponsored (removed because the source was deemed unreliable by Noloop) and that they may not in fact represent the views of the Iranian people (again from a source that noloop claim is a POV piece).Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. Let's start putting the rest of the section together utilising these sources in accordance with WP policy. cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

'Death to America'[68] has been in use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979,[69] along with other phrases often represented as anti-American. State sponsored murals characterised as anti-American dot the streets of Tehran[FPIF] , however, many Iranians admire the US[66] so it is unclear how prevalent sentiments which might be described as anti-American are. It has been suggested that under Ayatollah Khomeini anti-Americanism was little more than a way to distinguish between domestic supporters and detractors,[FPIF] and even the phrase 'Great Satan' which has previously been associated with anti-Americanism appears to now signify either the US and/or the UK.[ref for this?]

Thus we have one non American news paper for death to America and one book, 2 books for murals and one book for great Satan.(updated)Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I proopse that this is now used to replace the current paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)