Talk:Pro-Americanism

Verification & Neutrality Concern

There are some claims within the article that are questionable and without citation. Notably:

• "...pro-Americanism has been strong or growing in regions such as the United Kingdom, Japan, India,[1] Israel, Sub-Saharan Africa,[2] South Korea,[3] Vietnam,[4] the Philippines, and certain countries in central and eastern Europe.[5]"

• "...where the United States was seen as bullying South Korea into accepting imports of American beef, which some South Koreans viewed as unsafe. However, with China recently increasingly seen as a threat to South Korea, pro-Americanism has been once again on the rise."

 Done: Added citations for these claims, and linked more clearly to the beef incident page for people who want more information --Ash-Gaar (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

?404^CANBOLISM^404? *FYI:HISTORY STATES that japan adopted the chinese and what about china colonizing africa and biden said on live television that EUROPE has been Europeanized not that i watch/believe TV Hype that is but needs to be noticed and why is israel in this mix of >>>AMERICANISM<<< HMMM like ***ZOONOTICISM***[CHINESE ALIEN PARASITES>THAT TAKE OVER NATIVE HOST,AT FREE WILL]#CHINA=LORD OF ZOONOTIC HOST BY THE TRILLIONS&TRILLIONS#(JESUS/JUS'US)REVIVAL BY NOW...Keep in mind that they are MOSTLY still human beings but just hyponymically black mailed into there narrative's globally because I know for a FACT that humanity can and will over come ALL alienation/doctor nation in do time or in time there WILL can over come all biological devilment/evolvements. 369>>>THIS IS EXACTLY WHY USA IS HIGHLY NEEDED AND WILL ALWAYS STAND UP FOR HUMAN BEINGS GLOBALLY FOR EVER AND BEYOND<<<963  ;) ᚱ.ل.₢₢>>>CHOSEN LIGHT OF TRUE INSIGHT FOR HUMANITIES EVER LASTING PROSPARITY&LAWFUL EQUALITY RECONCILATION GREATER GOOD GLOBALLY. 2600:6C40:1500:1246:65B0:A0B5:C4DA:18AD (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Some of the paragraphs also have weird and improper / non-professional / cliche wording, such as "once again on the rise" and "so-called third world." ( Done) I might make a few changes to the wording soon, but I recommend that a few citations are added to some of these claims before they get removed. - MateoFrayo (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I changed one of these to "developing world" even though that phrase is anachronistic, but can you explain what is wrong with "once again" or "on the rise"? These are not cliches and are not listed in any of the pages you linked to. Ash-Gaar (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Referring to the “so-called third world” isn’t improper because it uses the term “third world”, but because adding “so-called” in front of it is tonally inappropriate for a Wikipedia article.

Furthermore, your characterisation of the phrase “developing world” as anachronistic is simply incorrect.

As the Wikipedia article developing country makes clear, the practice of categorising nations as either “developed” or “developing” became standard after the abandonment of three-world model.

Why? Because the entire second world ceased to exist over thirty years ago!

In all honesty, I’m not really sure why this page exists. As a citizen of a non-American English-speaking country, I have no idea what “a typical pro-American teenager” is, let alone why anybody would see fit to create a Wikipedia page about their wall decorations. I suspect the majority of non-American readers would be similarly perplexed.

Suppose I were to create a Wikipedia page called “Pro-Australianism”, complete with photographs of the bedroom of a “typical pro-Australian teenager”. It would be very weird, no?

To a non-American reader, this article is weird in precisely the same way. Foxmilder (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the notion of a "typical pro-American teenager" is strange and seems out of place here, so I've removed that. "Pro-American" is almost exclusively used to apply to non-US residents and countries, not patriotic American teenagers. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "developing world" being anachronistic, I wrote that in reference to the term being used in a paragraph about beliefs held during the Cold War, which took place before the phrase "developing world" came into widespread use. Go back and read the paragraph in question and you will see what I meant. Anachronism runs in both directions. --Ash-Gaar (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)