Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 16

message: This page was protected because of VeryVerily's ignorance of the three revert rule and his refusal to back his actions with valuable argumentation, not even in edit summaries. As he chose to start the same editing that caused the last protection right after unprotection and in spite of the repeated attempts above to discuss and since he behaves similarly in other articles I do not see any better solution than a request for comment on user conduct. Get-back-world-respect 00:31, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: GBWR of course did not revert the article more than three times, because that would make him also responsible for what occurred, and he is utterly blameless.  And my comments above don't actually exist, because as GBWR notes I refuse to "back [my] actions with valuable argumentation".  And GBWR is definitely not continuing the same editing that caused the last protection; it's only me.  I must be in an edit war with myself, clearly! VV 00:57, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As can be seen easily from above, I did not refuse to discuss, and I asked for protection rather than go on revertin like you in both cases. Because of your behaviour users have already requested comments on you twice, and unlike you I did not have to count on "boylovers"   to start such an action. Get-back-world-respect 01:08, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A shameful, disgusting, and absurd (indeed bizarre) attempt to link me to pedophilia. VV 01:17, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not link you to pedophelia, only the other two users. Moon_light_shadow even outed himself in the German version. I only wanted to point out that you even went as low as joining with them when complaining about one of the users who does not allow you to spread your partisan messages - something those guys do all the time. Get-back-world-respect 02:00, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: I think that the paragraph that was moved up and renamed from "Allegations of "anti-Americanism" being a propaganda term" to "the concept of Anti-Americanism", belongs where it was before.  Perhaps a different title for the section would be appropriate, but i don't think the new one is more fitting: The section does little to inform the reader what the "concept" of anti-americanism is.  Rather, it discusses the legitimacy of the term. (which is partly why it shouldn't be first - the term should not be thrown into question on first impression, and certainly not before it is given content.) Kevin Baas | talk
:I vehemently disagree. A large number of people believe that "anti-Americanism" as a kind of ideology does not exist, and that it is little more than a propaganda term. IMO it is POV to write a huge article about a propaganda term in the first place. Since this article already exists and isn't going to be deleted, we need at least inform people that the concept is disputed. If we did the same for e.g. The Jewish World Conspiracy, i.e. write a huge article discribing all the details of the the great Jewish world conspiracy, with only a little disclaimer at the end telling people it was only nutty Nazi propaganda - I'm sure you can see that this would be unacceptable POV. But I agree there is much work left on this paragraph, including the title if you like. - pir 23:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Page organization

message: If criticizing foreign nations for persecuting a religion is "intervention" and "meddling", then these terms have lost all meaning.  Were France and Germany "meddling" in American affairs by opposing the war in Iraq?  Is it "interventionism" when international forums dominated by Europeans urge the US to abandon the death penalty or adopt hate speech statutes?  What do you think the US did re this scientology issue that warrants this kind of rhetoric, David.Monniaux? VV 06:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously I can't speak for David.Monniaux, but "intervention" can mean "intervening in a political debate", i.e. offering an opinion, rather than the other type of intervention. There is also a huge difference between a government taking a stance on an international conflict (war on Iraq) and taking a stance on a country's purely internal affairs (Scientology, seen in many countries as a serious threat and not as a religion). The death penalty debate is more than just a purely internal affair, because it is seen as a breach of the Universal Convention of Human Rights. For example, AFAIK, abolishing capital punishment is a pre-condition for EU membership ; human rights issues are also the source of frequent Western criticism levelled at countries such as China, Iran, pre-2003 Iraq. - pir 09:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And persecution of a religion, that's unrelated to human rights?  Once more, I see you applying a double standard to make it seem one-sided.  Anyway, I reiterate that criticizing a nation's human rights record should not be called "intervention". VV 09:35, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are obviously right that religious persecution is a human rights issue. I'm not taking a position on the Scientology question here, I'm just saying that in Germany the Scientology issue is not seen as one of religion. - pir 10:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intervention and meddling 

message: Japan is general considered the only industrialized nation with a good human rights record that retains capital punishment.
This sentence is in the current article. I'm very supprised about it, considering Japans actions during WW2. I think this sentence should be either taken out, or changed to indicate that only the history of the last 50 years matters  Illuvatar 18:07, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with func's gist, if not his details.  Japan did naughty things ones, but their human rights record right now is excellent. VV 21:06, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japans human rights record 

message: I have split off anti-Americanism as discussed in the section "Future?". I am very aware that this won't make everyone happy, but I really hope it won't make anyone unhappier. I didn't want to make massive changes in the same go, so the definitions share phrases (improvements welcome). I did make a few changes to state the intent as clearly as possible: Anti-Americanism is about a perception of unfair criticism of the USA. Anti-American sentiment is about negative perceptions of the USA. Obviously, there is some intersection, but I suggest as a rule of thumb: Friends of the USA set the agenda on anti-Americanism (and foes of the USA can try and rebut on the same page which will hopefully result in some approximation of NPOV), while the roles are switched for anti-American sentiment (or whatever you want to call this page now). Rl 10:54, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Split off Anti-Americanism

message: I find it difficult to figure out the exact issues that editors are having with this article when I keep seeing the same meaningless reverts over and over again. Appearently, some of you are pro-that, while others of you are pro-which. Why this would make any difference to any speaker of the English language is utterly beyond me, but let's work it out. Maybe we could take it one sentence at a time:
:Sometimes this is called Coca-colonization from the Coca-Cola Company, which sold the same product worldwide.
:Sometimes this is called Coca-colonization from the Coca-Cola Company that sold the same product worldwide.
What about a rewrite along these lines:
:The term Coca-colonization is sometimes used to describe this, because of the beverage sold by the Coca-Cola Company worldwide.
func(talk) 12:37, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  That and Which