Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 23

message: Just so that we're all clear, User:Marielleh and User:Christinam are the same person; in looking back at Marielleh's edits this actually makes perfect sense. The former has been blocked indefinitely along with at least two other socks. The Christinam account may come back to edit here after her block but, to be frank, I'm not assuming good faith at this point. Marskell 16:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is who 

message: Here is a photo where an image from the Abu Ghraib scandal is being used in an example of Anti-Americanism.
This would probably be more neutral, and more immediately relevant to the article.--DCAnderson 16:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I say very good: it's a direct comment on the issue and on the country itself Be bold and add it. Marskell 16:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it, too. Tom Hope
its manufactured, unbalanced propaganda. A perfect example of anti-americanism. Mrdthree 07:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative Photo 

message: With the pic issue addressed I'd like to go back to the larger issue of definition. It seems to me that rather than debating what it is, the actual question is "when can it properly be employed?" Suggest for the first para:
"Anti-Americanism is a prejudice against the United States or the American people. In popular practice, a disparate variety of actions and attitudes critical of the United States have been labeled anti-Americanism, including hostility toward its government and culture. The usefulness and accuracy of the term in describing such a broad range has thus often been questioned. The widely-used anti-American sentiment less explicitly implies an actual prejudice and is often used instead."
The first sentence is actually more strict than at present, the point being "if you want to call it anti-Americanism, it actually has to be prejudicial." Toinet, for example (again verbatim in O'Connor): the term "is only fully justified if it implies systematic opposition - a sort of allergic reaction - to America as a whole." This is not a right-wing American polemicist saying "look how bad everyone is to America" but a French academic rather skeptically pointing out "if you actually want to use this term, it actually has to rise to this level." Let's try and make this distinction and edit accordingly. Marskell 17:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ? Would this help us or simply invite more mud-slinging? Marskell 14:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Both these points are covered in the intro so perhaps we should just leave it. Marskell 11:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not in the formula suggested above, and also not in the current version, which, in addition, is misleading and, at least in part, inaccurate and wrong. I suggest further reading of original sources to reach a better understanding of the term and its usage. Maybe we can first collect a number of relevant quotes and condense them into a more reasonable version. If users insist e.g. upon citing a definition of anti-Americanism as something irrational, verbatim quotes from primary sources, not taken out of context, would certainly help to evaluate their relevance.  We can later decide whether such definitions, if they exist, need to be mentioned in the introduction. Rkrichbaum 12:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The definition of anti-American as "critical and reasoned expression of a disagreement" is obviously not "covered" by a sentence that speaks of "hostile sentiment" and that "it is a further complication" if such feelings "reflect a reasoned evaluation", rather than a hypothetical and unsourced "truly prejudiced belief system". Rkrichbaum 13:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: "Complex anti-feelings" is used in a radically different sense than "rough composite of stereotypes ..." etc. which is obvious from the quote above alone, if it is read in its entirety. Rkrichbaum 13:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sir, I think you have an "in degree and in kind" problem. Treating differences in the latter sense, when they are more properly dealt with in the former. Either that, or you just like to argue. Kroes would like to form a binary--good for him. Perhaps we can use this, if and when we want to point out the difference between cultural and political criticism. His preface to the point is this: "Yet the range of (American) behavior is simply too wide—ranging, in culture from the sublime to the vulgar, and in politics from high-minded internationalism to narrow nationalism—to warrant any across-the-board rejection." This differs in degree from, but is not out of keeping with, Katzenstein, which we have in the intro. It differs in degree from, but is not out of keeping with O'Conner, which we have in the intro. Tweak, if you feel "does not rise to total rejection" needs mentioning. But please cease positing gaps that do not exist. Marskell 14:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squaring the circle 

message: The "Criticisms of the United States" section needs counterbalance to (start to...) make this article less baldly anti-American. I recommend redoing it as a point-counterpoint. (The section that follows, "Criticisms of anti-Americanism," doesn't cut it.) Anyone object? --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-24 09:28 (UTC)
:Turn both sections into prose and source them is my opinion. A point, counter-point I think will invite OR asides. Marskell 11:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Criticisms of the United States" -- too POV; suggested solution

message: It may be a good idea to include some historical facts into this article to justify anti-americanism, like the issues i've mentioned above. Obiously history could be considered. 24.23.51.27 02:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panama Canal, Indegenous people, Texas, Phillippines, Slavery, etc. 

message: It is estimated that the total number of Anti-Americans are around 4 billion people.--Noisettes 15:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any sources? --Noisettes 16:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I suspect it's meant as a joke. Hakluyt bean 01:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Anti-Americans

message: Here are a few links that used to be in the article and still should be:
Opposition to U.S. foreign policy should be a paragraph, not a footnote, and would include:
* global warming
* Perceived American Exceptionalism regarding international institutions and international law
* Perceptions that the United States was the key inspiration for globalization and neoliberal free trade policy (
* widespread belief among the altermondialists that the IMF is a toy of the United States and aggravates the situation of poor countries (Argentina, Kenya...)
* Cultural imperialism
Dislike for the "American way of life":
* Social issues in the United States
* health care (or absence thereof)
* War on Drugs
* gun control policies (or absence thereof)
* high rates of imprisonment
* homelessness
* continued employment of capital punishment
Criticisms of national character
* Claims of excessive materialism and a peculiar relationship to money
* Claims of excessive nationalism or blind patriotism 
* Claims of widespread ignorance and arrogance toward foreigners
* Stereotypes of obesity and fast food diets
* Criticisms of excessive religiosity and "Puritanism".
There are probably a few things to leave, among all those, but this is aproximately what anti-americanism is in France, which is one of the most anti-American European countries. That nearly none of this is mentionned in the article should ashame the editors. Jules.LT 19:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You lost a few links along the way... 

message: The rest of this article is quite well written and reasonably NPOV, but the caption to the Canada picture reads like polemic to me.  
I have marked it as NPOV to prevent a revert war.  Referencing a blog isn't very 
substantial research to me. Ggugvunt 14:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would start by saying I am very annoyed by american editors refusing to accept information that makes their country look unpopular, the image itself shows rioters throwing fencing sections at police, if that is not violent, or an illustration of strong feelings, I really do no know what is! --Frogsprog 14:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, you need to calm down a bit.  Secondly, if you think the picture is so violent and strong, let it speak for itself.  The text is clear enough without the polemics, which obviously conform to your POV.  I find it interesting that you automatically assume that I am an American editor - please see WP:AGF. Ggugvunt 14:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I am not strictly against any nation, it is quite obvious really that the only people who would reject statements makin america look bad, would be americans, as really there is no international support for the country, though I would never make a statement so bold in an article... --Frogsprog 14:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Listen - my only issue is this:  the caption sounded out of place with the reasonable tone of the rest of the article.  Don't jump to conclusions - please.   Can I revert it back to the non-adverbs version and remove the NPOV marker now? Ggugvunt 14:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, a compromise, I will re-add the adverb "violently" but leave out strong--Frogsprog 17:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better!  Thank you! Ggugvunt 17:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the section. Anti-Americanism in various countries was split from here precisely to avoid such material crowding the general description. As stated in the edit summary, I'd suggest you need to show the specific country is exceptional in its AA attitudes to be included here. Marskell 09:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Americanism in Canada, etc. 

message: this section accuses anti americanism of being a cover up for failing nations/systems, POV!!!! will be removed tomorrow if no discussion --Frogsprog 21:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I strongly disagree. Read any scholarly book on the subject of Anti-Americanism as an ideology, and you will see this a core theory. The section does not say it is true and makes no accusations at all. Where are you seeing this? Tfine80 21:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The other

message: this section is quite informative, Marksell justified removal of "in canada" but did not discuss removal of discrimination, I will (grudgingly) tag discrimination as neutrality disputed, along with "the other" which I also believe to be POV, comments welcome on both :) --Frogsprog 10:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is simply two anecdotes that don't actually deal with anti-Americanism. Marskell 13:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: anecdotes? I disagree! these are providing a background to people's dislike of america! to repeat myself again! I will not delete the other which i find to be POV, and will tag both as POV please do not remove without detailed discussion and arguments for the removal, "discrimination" is cited from wikiquotes and Is not in any way unsourced--Frogsprog 13:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrimination Section

message: I'd like to make an observation, if I may.  Most of the individuals editing this page seem to be under the impression that if a Frenchman utters "Those American's.  It was so wrong to invade Iraq!" then that makes them Anti-American.  It's as if, and my bias may be showing a bit here, but at least I'm honest about it and don't make any excuses, but it seems to me like a conservative tactic of those that support our current administration (The people in this country that aren't "Anti Bush") to try to explain away the critiscism from foreign entities as "Anti American".  Think about it.  Are you "Anti Mexico" because you want congress to pass a hardline immigration bill?  There's even a peice in this article that says these "Anti American extremist brainwashing factions" create an "other", a group of people that aren't them, that are unkown and must be feared for their strange ways.  This is exactly, EXACTLY what this conservative administration is doing to the us!  The fact of the matter is that there was no "logical" reason to invade Iraq.  Instead, Bush whipped up Anti-Iraq sentiment with false reports of weapons of mass destruction, catchy bumper sticker slogans, and the inherent suspicion that ALL people, American and Non-American, carry to varying degrees in their heart of those that are different.  I defy any of you to open up a Quaran and show me the part where it says you get 72 virgins for dieing in Allah's name.  That whole thing was made up by some Americans to try and get the rest of them to hate Muslims.  I guess the point of my rant is that before you start throwing rocks at least make sure to move out of your glass house first.  And I know what some of you are about to say to yourselves right now, and no, I'm not "Anti-American".  I think that the country we have is something very unique and special.  But that doesn't mean that I always think we're right, or good, or just.  Remember the Native Americans?  What did we do to them?  How about the Japanease during World War Two?  I mean, we weren't killing them like the Nazi's did to the Jews, but we still locked them up for being the race that they were.  And to try and portray us as anything else than what we are, well, I think that that makes you the Anti-American, not me.  Patriotism isn't just a word you slap on a bumper sticker.
Spazik007 01:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that both "sides" of this POV tend to complain that this article is POV in the other direction tells me we're doing something right :). Read the intro again: "Whether sentiment hostile to United States reflects reasoned evaluation of specific policies and administrations, rather than a truly prejudiced belief system, is a further complication." We are acknowledging the ambiguities here. What I think needs to happen is for the body to more carefully reflect the balance of the first two sections. There are still problems to be sure. Marskell 08:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro Americanism

message: Does anyone else think this article is a little heavy on its' use of images? The first image (cover of Anti-Americanism) should definately stay, though I think another five pictures after that (at time of typing this) is a bit excessive and only serves to screw up the formatting. In my opinion the Nazi propaganda poster should also stay (due to its' relative fame) along with one other. Edders 16:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many pictures? 

message: The para beginning "the Pew research institute probed more deeply the stereotypes of Westerners in the Middle east" is tangential and should, I think, be abbreviated to a sentence or rm'ed. Marskell 08:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I plan to expand it. It is essential to anti-americanism to understand the negative stereotypes. Stereotyping is a form of prejudice and prejudice is of course the defining aspect  of anti-americanism. Prejudice is what underlies the assumption of the worst when given partial or inconclusive informaiton. Prejudice is what makes people (esp. in the middle east) disposed to believing propagnada and conspiracy over reports from reliable US institutions such as free media. Mrdthree 08:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but tangents are tangents, and Wiki articles need to be summary style. The para deals with Anti-western attitudes, not AA attitudes specifically. Marskell 09:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: THere are tangents and there are secants. Mrdthree 09:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that the article is devoted to causes. I think that polling data should be grouped into a new subsection about regional distribution of Anti-american sentiment. Mrdthree 17:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the polling data concerning the preceived cultural attributes of Americans is very telling of ME attitudes, but I don't understand the importance of the religious poll results in an anti-American article.  "Jews" and "Christians" are not unique to the US. Sugplumxx 10:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lengthy Mid East section 

message: May i suggest adding a section on american arrogance towards others and superiority complex, also an inability to admit to any wrong doing. Such as the killing of British soldiers in Iraq, and then denying it happened. People tend to become Anti-American for these reasons.
J. Quinn 20th September 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.213.247 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we should not add such a section. Save blog posts for blogs. If you can source that an increase in Anti-Americanism, outside of the usual in a given country, has occured because of some incident or other perhaps there's place for it. Marskell 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Marksell is one of those canadian traitors who likes the US better than his own country because he likes the idea of a country where anyone can have a gun and get as much power as they want.. never mind --Frogsprog 14:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Frog. Usually I'm not pedantic, but I find your repeated comments unhelpful in the extreme and am going to report this on the admin noticeboard. Marskell 15:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Warned user. Marskell 15:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the majority of Frogs comments and additions are unnecessary and question the value of Frogs contributions at this site. Mrdthree 02:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arrogance 

message: I have tried to counter all the bias that this article has against our nation. But some people keep reverting my edits. Please, let's discuss it here first, so we won't have to edit the article a hundred times every minute.
I believe that this article is biased against the truth and I want to have a healthy balance. I want people to know that yes, there are some folks out there who don't like us, but they are wrong. America isn't the way this article descibes it. Please, give your piece of mind on here before editing again. Thanks, (LonghornJohnny 18:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cite some examples of what America has not done that is stated in this article. Gdo01 18:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said that everything is right what we do/did. However, the article is a summary of all the bad things that happened and it puts the US on the spot for it. So I figured I would add some good things that we also did, but it's not mentioned anywhere in the article. (LonghornJohnny 18:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: actually, you are adding commentary, as per my warning on your talk page User talk:LonghornJohnny, it will be reverted as vandalism each time you add it --Frogsprog 18:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We ain't like that 

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 23, 2006, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: The prose is extremely good.  This is my fourth review, and umpteenth article read, but I think this article may have some of the best writing I have seen.
:2. Factually accurate?: Everything seems accurate, as far as I know.  There is, however, a serious problem with citations.  Most sections include ample (and well-formatted) citations.  However, certain sections that make fairly broad statements are not sourced.  Some quotes have only an author listed, but no information about which publication the author made such a statement.  That's a big problem, and it's the main reason the nomination failed.
:3. Broad in coverage?: The article is very thorough, and hits on most important points.  The only exception is when it comes to the causes of anti-Americanism (see below).
:4. Neutral point of view?: In the course of my review, I read through the comments on the nomination above.  Here is the second big problem with the article: it paints anti-Americanism as unjustified, even going as far as to compare it to anti-Semitism.  The article needs to include the motivations behind the French intellectuals, Islamist fundamentalists, South Korean students, Latin American populists, and even Americans themselves who are "anti-American" and provide each group's stated rationale for this sentiment.
:5. Article stability? Not stable at all.  There appears to be controversy over whether the nomination was a good idea, so I'm not surprised that many continue to make significant edits.
:6. Images?: Images are all good, and appropriate.  The burning flag is probably the easiest-to-recognize symbol of anti-American protest in the world today, so it's inclusion is fine.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration.  Thanks for your work so far.--Tjss(Talk) 21:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your analysis; hopefully this is on a couple of more watchlists. I have removed the GA "failed" tag, however. I think GA is an incoherent process and don't believe the pass/fail really amounts to much beyond tag clutter at the top of talk. Again though, if more people are looking at it, that's good. The history still needs sourcing, particularly. Marskell 21:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad to see someone put the tag back on.  I have no dog in the fight over this article, but it was nominated, and the decision must be reflected on the talk page according to Wikipedia policy.  --Tjss(Talk) 03:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no policy that applies to GA, AFAIK. If you know of one, I'd be curious. Marskell 05:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy is implied by the GA review process.  A review was requested, and the review requires that the decision be posted and justified on the talk page.  This informs other editors about the article's current quality status, and advises them during future attempts to gain GA promotion.  Simply not believing in the process--calling it "incoherent"--is not reason for removal.  If you disagree with a decision, the tag gives a link for review.  --Tjss(Talk) 14:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That policy is implied by the process in this case is a debatable point. Policy is implied for our FA process, because they appear on our main page, WikiMedia has produced a press release regarding them, etc. GA, by contrast, is a process that many don't like and that has not been properly integrated with FA. Marskell 12:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not my problem if many don't like it.  It is an official Wikipedia process.  --Tjss(Talk) 23:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, reduced to the basics: no, it's not (an official Wikipedia process). Point to the page where I should deduce otherwise and I'll change my stance. There is nothing "official" about GA. Marskell 23:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is absurd.  It is a process, consensually-developed and in the Wikipedia namespace, that has recognized standards.  All other policy has been developed and modified in that same way.  If you don't agree, I don't care.  Looking at this talk page I see you seem to enjoy arguing with everyone here, so I will give you more time to do that by not responding further. --Tjss(Talk) 15:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re arguing: you should see the archives! Anyhow, I consider these "official". It's a fair position. Marskell 16:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: I think that the flag burners jpg is there to push an agenda. I think it is a photo that was selected to evokes an emotional response. The book cover does not elicit an emotional response but makes the same statement; people burn american flags to express anti-americanism. I dont want to feel agitated everytime I go to the page.  Mrdthree 17:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mrdthree , you have been reported for violation of the 3RR rule. FWIW, both pictures elicit exactly the same response from me. You seem to want to advertise someone's book on that page. I never said that we were in the majority, but rather that you were in the minority ... don't ever put words in my mouth again.Duke53 | Talk 17:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Both pictures are of burning flags with nothing else in the images themselves - I support Duke53 here because it does feel like a book is being advertised. CloudNine 20:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur. Raymond Arritt 20:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record I dont own nor have I ever read the book. I just liked the image because I thought it pushed  boundaries while remaining  tasteful. I think the power of the symbol of a  burning flag is muted by the text which says anti-americanism. The text objectifies the act and symbol, rather than asking the viewer to  sympathize with (or react to) the action or image  Mrdthree 05:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mrdthree, I think you have a point about the different connotations of the two images. Though the book cover is pushing the boundaries of promotion somewhat. Do you have any alternative ideas that are less likely to cause edit conflicts? That is, if we need such a representation of a an abstract disputed term at all? I'm not convinced we do.--Zleitzen 15:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The book cover is much better in terms of substance -- it's visually striking, and more importantly it implies we're considering the phenomenon in an academic context. My preference for the other pics is based solely on concerns about promotion and copyright. If a convincing argument can be made that those are non-issues, the book picture is more suitable. Raymond Arritt 17:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've knocked up a version of the burning flag image on photoshop which hopefully conveys the message of the book image without the promotion aspects. Will that suffice?--Zleitzen 18:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What you created is a picture of fire and a picture of a flag, which is not the same as a picture of a flag burning. I'd like to see the non advertisement picture put back in place. I have a copy of a copyright free version of a man burning an American flag that we could use here (where he's seen actually burning the flag)Duke53 | Talk 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Pretty cool if you put that together on photoshop. Looks professional. Nice work. I am going to give myself a flag timeout and play in my sandbox. Mrdthree 22:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag Burning Images

message: Every good article on controversial topics has a critism section, but not this one! There are some critisms of Anti-Americanism out there, why are they kept from Wikipedia?
One critism I know of is the "snob bashing."
For example:
A person writes an Anti-American story about how tough Americans "pretend" to be on the personal level. When she/he receives critismfrom Americans, she/he writes that the critism is proof of the authors claim that Americans are not as tough as they claim to be. However, people who agree with the author are lauded by the author for seeing "the truth."
Many Americans have complained to me of books, stories, hell one even told me a pornographic story (which I later read and based the example on) in which the authors claimed that if Americans responded negatively to the authors writing, it was proof the authors were right. And that when Americans did not respond, the author would either write more anti-American works, or make the claim that she/he "defeated" the americans.
The critism is that this is not a fair way to make critisms of America, its the "snob" or "childish" way to do so, and very un-scientific of emprical results are expected and very unfair to Americans.
In the case of the story above that was the example, I wrote the author saying that "it is unfair to stereotype Americans at the personal level based on little or no research other than the perceptions (the author) received from the nightly news, and (his/her) psychology class. There are strong Americans, there are weak ones. At the individual level every nationality people that would fall into both catagories." 
I received a email back that it was just proving the authors point that I, as an American, could not stand her writing anything bad about Americans, and that it was proof of our (she/he used "your") inner weakness.
Edited in: Scryer_360 posted that. How do you get the damn auto-sig to work?
:For the auto sig its ~~~~. Right below "show changes" you'll see "sign your name" or, in the icons at the top, you'll notice one that shows the squiggles of a signature. These both do it automatically.
:Now, "every good article on controversial topics has a critism section" is something I disagree with. Many editors are of the opinion that they are a bad idea as they invite people to post rants or personal musings rather than encyclopedic content; here is one discussion. You might also read Wikipedia:No original research. Personal stories, such as the one you describe, can be revealing but aren't allowed here unless they've been published elsewhere. 
:Thanks for the input. Marskell 21:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh. Well this is disheartening too. Scryer, I didn't look at your contribs, but just assumed you were a brand new user because you asked about the auto-sig. My ref to the policy was meant to be helpful, not patronizing. Marskell 12:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critism of Anti-Americanism? 

message: I think the outline may be overly detailed and misclassify some things but its the best I can do. Maybe someone else has better ideas about how to classify the stuff? I will put together an example item of anti-american incident. Mrdthree 16:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little iffy at the moment. The previous structure was largely chronological and now that aspect is being shoehorned under various headings. It doesn't read right to have "degeneracy" after "anti-technology", for instance. Marskell 17:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well how about giving it a day of criticism and then reverting it back so I can see what people find essential and then rethink the outline. My thought about the chronology is that (almost?) none of the listed criticisms have disappeared. But I admit the chronology of the criticisms arising is not something I thought of when I wrote hte outline. TO me the contemporary column is just there for sake of avoiding the controversy of categorizing current criticism. Mrdthree 19:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The content has not seriously changed, so we can probably work out a compromise between the two. I'll try and have a close look in a day. Marskell 20:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outline issues

message: Strong feelings against the United States (and at times the North American continent) have persisted since the country's original settlement, with criticisms varying greatly in content and motive.
to
Since the United States founding, Anti-Americanism has existed in different forms and for different reasons. 
Reason:
Original statment to vague and wordy.  Further, this article is not about North America, but about the US alone.
Deleted: 
*The BBC: BNP questioned over US fund-raising  
* Genocide Watch: 8 Stages of Genocide  (moved to another page)
* Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973 (moved to another page)
Reason: At first glance, has little to do with Anti-Americanism. 
Signed: RWV 06:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: The following sections, information was deleted in the last edit.  I do not support nor criticize this change, I am simply stating here what has been removed. 
Some of this information may have been integrated into the article, during User:Mrdthree's and User:Marskell's excellent clean up:
 ====Criticisms of the United States====
Some of the most common criticisms of the United States involve:
* U.S. Foreign Policy - Main article: Opposition to U.S. foreign policy.
** American military interventions and perceived imperialism, especially in connection with 2003 invasion of Iraq and the Vietnam War
** Selectivism in resolving various global problems (global warming, disease, wars in Africa)
** Refusal to sign various international treaties including the Kyoto Protocol, the Ottawa Treaty on landmines, and some proposed agreements to limit the weaponization of space
** Support for military dictatorships and totalitarian governments during and after the Cold War such as Augusto Pinochet.
** Criticism of American economic sanctions and embargos toward various countries, including Cuba and Iran, while maintaining commercial relations with countries such as China.
** Selective favor given to allies of the United States in international institutions, especially involving issues like proliferation
* U.S. Domestic Policy
** American policies which diverge from those of other developed countries, including the health care, public education, drug, and gun control policies
** American social problems, including high rates of imprisonment and homelessness
** The continued employment of capital punishment, or conversely excessive leniency towards criminals.
** Claims of continued high levels of racism and discrimination in American society
* Human Rights issues
** American Exceptionalism regarding international institutions and international law (International Criminal Court) and post-9/11 anti-terrorism laws (see US Patriot Act)
* Economic issues
** Perceptions that the United States was the key inspiration for globalization and neoliberal free trade policy
** Criticisms of the ethical behavior of certain American corporations
** A lack of social welfare and income redistribution policies relative to other industrialized nations
* Criticisms of national character
** Claims of excessive patriotism or chauvinism
** Claims of widespread ignorance of places and peoples outside of the US, and arrogance toward foreigners
** Stereotypes of obesity and fast food diets
** Criticisms of excessive religiosity and "Puritanism" or conversely, immorality and vulgarity
** Claims of frequent use of crude slang or a bastardized version of English language
*Other issues
** Cultural imperialism through spread of the English language and American popular culture
** Perceived lack of attention to environmental issues, including various issues related to high use of fossil fuels 
** Criticism of a lack of universal gay rights, or, conversely, excessive acceptance of alternative lifestyles.
For a more detailed breakdown of anti-American rhetoric and sentiment by country, see anti-American sentiment in various countries.
 ====Criticisms of anti-Americanism====
Due to the variety of motives for anti-americanism sentiment, support of this sentiment varies with context. Similarly, some motives are viewed as more or less legitimate by both Americans and non-Americans.
Some Pro-Government Americans criticise Anti-americanism on the following points:
*Some Americans charge that anti-Americanism stems from jealousy, especially from rival powers. This is the traditional argument used to qualify Anti-Americanism in France.
*Conversely, other forms may be attributed to up-and-coming would-be superpowers who wish to unseat the US in status. This is a view of anti-Americanism in China, and the former Soviet Union. 
*Some attribute anti-Americanism to radical Islam. By this view, the critics are viewed as objecting to women's rights and human rights, and therefore viewed as regressive or religiously fanatic. This style of anti-Americanism is considered a common motivation for countries such as Iran, and radical Islamists like Osama Bin Laden, although many anti-americanists argue that "radicalism" is simply a label attached by the Americans.
*Some view much anti-Americanism as a left-over effect from Marxism or Communism, and anti-capitalist sentiment in general. Because the United States is a prominent capitalist country (which can be viewed as either a virtue or a fault), it is assumed to logically follow that many anti-American critics will be motivated by economic philosophies in their arguments. This is often the argument leveled against anti-globalization protesters.
*Some critics hold consistent criticism against American policies, by the Left as well as by foreign critics. The claim often made is "damned if we do, damned if we don't". Thus American intervention in 1999 in Kosovo led to popular protests in Europe, while the UN has criticized America's non-intervention in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. According to this view, no policy by the United States can ever hope to satisfy everyone and all US actions will inevitably be interpreted and presented in a negative way.
*Other critics of anti-Americanism claim that it is a simplistic view or over-generalization, sometimes bordering on discrimination. However, the objection often raised is that since Americans are not a race, it cannot technically be called "racism". It should be noted that early forms of anti-Americanism indeed had racist overtones, such as French naturalists' view that North American flora and fauna were biologically inferior. Stereotypes that Americans are somehow more "fat" or "stupid" than other people are sometimes criticized as prejudiced, and are often center around an assumed image of Americans as a universally WASP people. 
*Some critics draw parallels between modern anti-Americanism and the defamation campaign against European Jews during the 1920s and 30s. One example would be a controversy in Germany about a caricature depicting American investment bankers as mosquitoes with top hats, labeled "die Aussauger" (the suckers), imagery that in the view of some critics resembles a caricature depicting "the Jew" as a spider. 
*Some critics argue that anti-American criticism from the Left is sometimes in line with criticism from nationalist movements, or radical Islamists. They charge that well-meaning critics are unwittingly aiding causes that are not considered "progressive". One example would be in Japan, where both anti-American right wing groups ('uyoku') and Leftists agitate against American military bases, while only the right wing groups also agitate for a rearmament of Japan with nuclear weapons.
Signed: RWV 06:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remember WP:NPA, please comment on the content, not on the person. Thank you. I wrote some more on User:Sugplumxx. RWV 12:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The memory hole: The following was deleted

message: Refactored from the following comments.
"The memory hole: The following was deleted, ====Criticisms of the United States====" That entire portion should have been left in, because THAT is what anti-Americanism is. That's what Brits, Canadians, and others spew at Americans, fast food, obese, excessive patriotism (jingoism as the Brits like to say).    
Leave it in to show people the real ignorance and trendiness of anti-Americanism, and the stereotyped, intolerant people who engage in it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sugplumxx (talk • contribs).
:Please remember WP:NPA, please comment on the content, not on the person. Thank you. I wrote some more on User:Sugplumxx. RWV 12:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Fact 

message: As mentioned above, I am writing a paper on Anti-Americanism.
Thought I would share experts of one scholarly paper....
* 
Signed RWV 08:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Excerpts of research paper on Anti-Americanism

message: I have been observing this page for about two weeks.  A lot of anons lately have added unsourced statements.
 
I see a lot of problems with this page.  I don't think it will be any help with my research paper, and to rewrite the page would step on the toes of those who have contributed to the page and feel they have an interest in the page.
I removed these unsourced statments, moving them to the talk page:
:Feelings of distrust and dislike toward the United States exist to various degrees in states in Western Europe. A survey in June 2005 showed that a majority of Europeans had an unfavorable image of America; however, two-thirds of those opting for the "unfavorable" option claimed that this was due to George Bush and his political actions.
:Great Britain, usually considered to be Americas' closest ally, has several American military bases, but since the invasion of Iraq, British people have begun to criticise America for mistreating its' allies and exploiting the military.  Incidents which have further sparked criticism have been the 2003 Extradition Treaty (especially the treatment of The Enron Three and the use of British airfields to courier weapons to Israel.
:Explicitly anti-American platforms have been adopted by leaders in the region, in part as a populist measure; this has been true in Cuba for decades and in Venezuela more recently.
I removed this statment, because in the broader idea of anti-americanism, this event is rather minor:
:Very briefly, an Anti-American party, the British Anti-American Party was established in September 2006, but failed to expand and was soon disbanded, although a group of ex-members have set up a non-political movement against Americanization.
Signed: RWV 21:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed unsourced statments

message: Re: 
Anti-Americanism, often Anti-American sentiment, is a prejudice against the government, culture, or people of the United States
My edit:
Anti-Americanism, often Anti-American sentiment, is opposition or hostility toward the government, culture, or people of the United States.  
The first edit is unsourced.  I added a the words "opposition or hostility" from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary.  
Basically, there are two ways that people see Anti-Americanism, they see it as "internally" (i.e. what America is) often embraced by conservatives, or "externally" (i.e. what America does) often embraced by liberals.  Some serious scholars have recently studies anti-Americanism and came up with a more complex picture: that Anti-Americanism is both.  Maybe I can post some of the research papers on this soon.  I already added one in the external links section.
Stating that Anti-Americanism is prejudice is an internal view point.  
I find it interesting that two of the quotes in the opening sentence which I looked up, are from O'Connor, who subscribes to the "interal" view of anti-Americanism:
:I argue that anti-Americanism is not a comprehensive or coherent belief system or ideology, but rather a series of criticisms and prejudices regarding America that have haphazardly been labelled anti-Americanism.
A better introduction would be an explanation of internal and external viewpoints, and the new research in the field.  I think O'Connor has a part in this wikiarticle, but in the internal section.  I don't want to squelch anyones contributions, and I want all major voices to be heard in this article.
I will add some links too some of the articles right now, and if I get around to it, I will write some of these ideas into the article.  That way the article reflects scholarly research on the subject too. Signed: RWV 23:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the dictionaries. I don't want to revert over it, but will only recapitulate the discussion: because "hostile" and "opposed" are open to interpretation, reducing it to the simplest is simplest. Marskell 23:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope my new explanation explains this better.  Thanks for your comprimise.  I owe you one.  As I have mentioned before, I am really impressed by the work you and Mrdthree  have done on this article. RWV 23:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what explanation you're referring to. "Hostile and opposed" is a re-addition, not an addition, BTW. It had read as such for eight months. Anyhow, since your stance is "no source", OK. I don't think it helpful, however, in terms of throwing off previous balance achieved. Marskell 00:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced statments

message: Maybe this will explain "external" and "internal" better than I can:
 PDF file
...Drawing from the rich literature on anti-Americanism, one type of factor influencing attitudes towards the United States may be described as "external." Several authors have proposed that external factors are attitudes toward the United States determined by the character of U.S. foreign policies and actions, ranging from military campaigns so the export of Hollywood movies. Other authors emphasize "internal" factors as causal agents. They argue that foreign attitudes derive from the particular psychological, cultural or political aspects of each nation. The relative importance of the classification of these two factors has become a subject of heated debate both inside and outside the United Stares, leading to the polarization of public discussion on the United States image abroad...
Signed RWV 14:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Excerpts of paper

message: While I like the opening photo at the moment, does anybody else think that perhaps one of people burning it at a protest may provide a bit more context and, for whatever reason, just look more encyclopedic... If you know what I mean. Cheers. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 08:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BB RWV 18:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Different flag burning picture

message: Changed مرک بر آمريكا to مرگ بر آمريكا. Also, the literal translation of that is the famous 'Death to (upon) America', not 'Down with the USA' or anything as euphemistic - though the interpretation of the phrase  may differ, the literal translation is pretty direct. I leave this to the discretion of other editors though. My Persian is very limited, so I may stand to be corrected. Just thought I'd mention it (forgive me for not going through the archives to check if it already had). Wouldn't hurt to mention Jalal Al-e Ahmad's term, gharbzadegi غربزدگى ("Westoxication") in the middle east section either - though the translation to "gharbzadegi" is ultimately lost in translation (and beyond my meager skills). Khirad 18:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But see, "مرگ" means more than "death" in Persian. It is much more metaphorical than that. Like, if I said "Marge Bizâns" (The death of the Byzantines) I am not speaking of a literal death, but rather their downfall. And also, it doesn't really make much sense to translate "Marg bar Komyunizm" to mean "Death to communism". It means "Down with communism". This is not a euphemism. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Farsi

message: Please note that the Dutch poster  used in this article was published by the Storm magazine that belonged to a radical wing of the Dutch National_Socialist_Movement_in_the_Netherlands. Here is a description in Dutch language of the magazine  Andries 06:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dutch poster

message: The article currently uses some single "=" headers, but articles aren't supposed to... AnonMoos 13:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BB why does everyone post what should be on this page here, instead of making the changes? Travb (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Header level

message: I agree with the editor who deleted out the polomic from the anon.  Too many people (mostly patriotic Americans?) feel that discussing anti-Americanism is anti-American.  IMHO these editors are putting their head in the sand.  Anti-Americanism is strong, and getting stronger. Denying its existence does not make it go away. 
As I mentioned above, this article is slanted to what scholars call the "internal view" that Anti-Americanism is, to be very simplistic, "everyone elses fault".  I see this bias in some of the comments of some of the editors above also. 
Does this mean I am unbiased? No.  I gravitate to the "external view", that people hate america for what it does.  This does not mean that the internal view does not have merit, it definetly does.  
I just argue that if this article is to be a truly encyclopedic article, then wikieditors on this article will have to write in a less biased way, using scholarly research (see the external links section which I added) with all scholarly hypothesis being equally heard. All sides should be in this article even if some editors, with those scholarly views.   I argue that even if most editors disagree with these scholarly views, these scholarly views should be in the article.
I would change the article myself, but the subject simply does not interest me enough to spend the hours changing it, which would be required...So, like the editors above, I will rant here, which is must easier. :)
Further, lets all keep in mind that wikipedia is not a web blog.  New editors are the most guilty of going off on long polemics like the anon did.  This is understandable, as a new editor, I used too also. I am still trying hard to curb this desire to rant....I am getting better, but I still often go off on irrelevant topics. Travb (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reverts were out of line. In the first place, some of the comments did bear on the article.  In the second place, your reverts were arbitrary: you reverted some comments, but let other stand that were just the sorts of comments you deprecate in your discussion here. If you're going to apply standards, apply them consistently. Raymond Arritt 01:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response on your talk page User_talk:Raymond_arritt#RE:_Talk:Anti-Americanism.23Wikipedia_is_not_a_web_blog. Thanks. RWV 12:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editors great revert, making this a truly encyclopedic article, and what wikipedia is not (a web blog)

message: I reverted the comments of several editors, because they have little to do with the article itself, except the authors own opinion, with no supporting, verifiable information.  
Please see:  Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site
If users don't like the way this article is written please rewrite the article, don't ask others to do it for you!  
 
Please correct me if I am wrong, but none of these editors who commented here have actually contributed anything to the article itself.  Please let your own biases and POV be reflected in the article, not on the talk page. WP:BB Be bold.
I am going to refactor Wikipedia:Refactoring_talk_pages some of the comments that are actually applicable to the article itself. 
Again:
Wikipedia is not a web blog.  
Please see:  Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site
Thanks all. RWV 11:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your reverts were out of line. In the first place, some of the comments did bear on the article.  In the second place, your reverts were arbitrary: you reverted some comments, but let other stand that were just the sorts of comments you deprecate in your discussion here. If you're going to apply standards, apply them consistently. Raymond Arritt 01:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response on your talk page User_talk:Raymond_arritt#RE:_Talk:Anti-Americanism.23Wikipedia_is_not_a_web_blog. Thanks. RWV 12:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia is not a web blog