Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 24

message: It seems that anti-Americanism doesn't come in varying degrees.72.194.119.243 00:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsession With America 

message: This paper should mention american intervention in the internal and regional politics of other countries as a source for anti-american setniments. The overthrowing of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953 by american agents, and the 60s and 70s CIA assasanations are just some examples, and are in my opinion directly linked to anti-american feelings. More general the article seems heavily biased, and gives the impression that anti-americanism is almost always psychological symptom of something else, when in fact there are cases where anti-american sentiment is to some degree justified.
:We already have an article about opposition to U.S. foreign policy. By the way, the overthrow of Mossadegh was a joint operation with the U.K. Is there an article called "anti-Britishism" that mentions this operation? --BrianMDelaney 17:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was so British, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was broken up and replaced with American oil corporations Shah were American... LamontCranston 11:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. It was a British initiative, and the U.S., an ally, agreed to help. Try reading some history. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-08-12 07:49 07:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Foreign policy does not wholly explain anti-Americanism, hence the separate article. There is an article specific to Anglophobia, but that does not encompass all of UK, just the English. You can always create one though...Zildjianrulez 13:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Interventionism 

message: Just one minor complaint, in the opinion poll on middle east attitudes I don't see what relevance opinions on Jews have to anti-Americanism. I can understand the Christian statistics perhaps being relevant, but the Jewish statistics, whilst interesting, have no direct relevance to anti-Americanism. blankfrackis 15:35, 05 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion Poll section in the Middle East 

message: I think we should revisit the headlines; a lot of the level fours don't make sense where they are and we jump between a chronology and isolated ideas.
I also don't know about "Snobbery." At present it's just seems a means to get a Fawlty Towers quote on the page. Marskell 18:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headlines + snobbery 

message: i drive a japanese car
:I wear clothes made in China
::And eat Mexican & Chinese Food
:::??????
Angry Aspie 02:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I;m pro American but.. 

message: I do not have the time to read this all the way through, but is there anything concerning Canadian Anti-Amercanisim or whatever. Just thought that should be put up, for obvious reasons.
::I've tried, but when you put something that is clearly mindless hatred against Americans, having nothing to do with foreign policy, some regular editors remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.229.204.129 (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe some Canadians are anti-american because of people like you, who assume that any sort of criticism is completely unfounded and is simply an inferiority complex.  Open your mind, open your brain, open your eyes.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.189.212 (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is talking founded or unfounded?  The purpose of the article is to show antiAmericanism, not justify everything anti-American. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.229.204.129 (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadians 

message: I plan to expand the Latin American Section. Here are two NON RS V sources listing events that lead to Latin American anti Americanism.
List One
List Two
I propose to include 20 - 25 of the most significant. I also feel that the 64 Canal Zone riots should be covered Martyrs'_Day and maybe even touch on the Rivera murals at Rockefeller Center in the 30's Link
IYHO, what events are notable enough for inclusion? Thanks - Fairness And Accuracy For All 02:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin America Section 

message: I removed Henry_de_Montherlant from the Degeneracy thesis section.  He was a 20th-century figure and seemed out of place and misleading in a section otherwise devoted to 18th-century opinions.  Perhaps he would be relevant to another section of this article. --OinkOink 01:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry de Montherlant 

message: In this section I'm removing the paragragh on the kidnapping of Martin and Gracia Burnham in the Phillipines.  I don't see how this relates directly witht the topic at hand.  The group is not aligned with the Phillipine Government nor did it express the kidnapping had anything to do with anti-american sentiment (in reality it may have but this point was not put into the paragraph).
21 January 2007 220.253.53.29 06:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asia 

message: ::That's probably the only thing on this planet that myself and squeakbox would agree on, that this article is completely useless.  It's a dumping ground for every anti-American person that stops by and wants to show, "Look at this, this is why we hate you!" and then editors try desperately to weave the snippits of nonsense these people added into something cohesive.  It's too long, it jumps from one small subject to the next.  It has a ridiculous amount of peer-reviewed articles that no one is actually going to click on.  And mostly, some regular editors seem to think everything anti-American needs to be justified.
::"...some people are anti-American because they don't think American power and influence" yadda yadda and so forth, whatever  Right, I don't think Iranian power and influence is a good thing and I think the mindless hatred coming out of the Commonwealths has no other purpose but to encourage people who are killing in the name of that hate, but do you see me over on those articles showing them how much I despise them?  No.  That's the difference, those who want to glorify their hatred and those who don't. 68.229.201.181 18:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect no less from a 'Canuckistani'. :o)  Guard our northerns borders from the hateful bigots. How's that for a response to your rant, "alibi for americans who are to cowardly to look at the suffering that they create"  68.229.201.181 02:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless Article 

message: I'm from a European country  and EVERYBODY around me hates USA.. or at least they have negative feelings towards it... And I have travelled throughout Europe and I found this kind of feelings everywhere. And it all started somewhere after USA's war on/of terror. So this article isn't just someone's twisted imagination, this problem really exists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.142.51.41 (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You must be about 12 years old then.  I lived abroad before Iraq and before Bush and Euros practiced the same bigotry against Americans that they do now.  But it was an uplifting comment.  I hope you feel better now.  They've raised you in their image, youngster.  68.229.201.181 02:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I am glad that you all hate the US, especialy the Canadian below me.  I feel reassured now that all is right with the world. Cheers--Looper5920 21:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree that this article is a must-have 

message: Good, referenced information such as the following has been stripped from this article. The following inclusion wasn't exaggerated but understated - because the Reliable Source reference states that surveys of Americans say they approve of torture!
"In recent years, America, American politicians eg Donald Rumsfeld  and Americans generally are increasingly portrayed as approving torture - eg ."
What does it take to keep good information in articles? PalestineRemembered 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Portrayed by who or what as approving of torture? I agree that the information ought to be reinserted, but I take issue with the word "portrayed", because it doesn't say who is portraying them and it doesn't make it clear if the portrayal is accurate. Asarelah 20:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are here to write an encyclopaedia. We are attempting to define a (supposedly) widely-held "cultural belief". Most of the article should be based on what (articulate) "anti-American" people claim about their belief, and about the factors which cause this belief. Whether the examples are true or not is irrelevant to the cultural phenomenon (and analysis would likely be partisan and not belong in the article anyway). When Americans are known to approve of torture, and "anti-Americans" refer to this as being a factor, this information should be in the lead. The article is currently written as if "anti-Americanism" is driven by some kind of mass hysteria, hallucination or mental illness. It's almost as if the article was written to preclude any form of rational analysis eg the lead says "Whether sentiment hostile to the United States reflects reasoned evaluation of specific policies and administrations, rather than a prejudiced belief system, is often invoked to cloud the issue". The article wishes us to believe that "reasoned evaluation" is "clouding the issue". PalestineRemembered 08:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Americans approve of torture 

message: I added this template to the "Regional Attitudes" section because it is almost completely quotes. Some of the quotes are disguised as text, but they are still just quotes.--Sefringle 19:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the hell is going on with all these quotes inserted into the body? Marskell 09:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a fucking mess. Do people mind if I revert to a month old version? Marskell 09:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The quotes are in because you in particular kept taking out relevant content, claiming it as "unsourced", among other claims. If you find a way to include the content, without all the quoting, by all means. But do not simply remove relevant content. Otherwise, it is apparent you are simply throwing up excuses for applying a selection bias to remove content that doesn't conform to your own POV. Porphy 01:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Porphy's version makes this much more encyclopedic. Picture an article on anti-Semitism that opens with more than a simple mention of how anti-Semitism might "reflect reasoned evaluation of specific policies...." Without Porphy's version, the article itself becomes even more anti-American than it still is. --Justice for All 06:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotefarm 

message: Anti-Americanism, often Anti-American sentiment, is opposition or hostility toward the government, culture, or people of the United States.[1] In practice, a broad range of attitudes and actions critical of or opposed to the United States have been labeled anti-Americanism and the applicability of the term is often disputed. [2] Contemporary examples typically focus on international opposition to United States policy, though historically the term has been applied to a variety of concepts.
Interpretations of anti-Americanism have often been polarised. Anti-Americanism has been described as a belief[3] that configures the United States and the "American way of life" as threatening at their core.[4] However, it has also been suggested that Anti-Americanism cannot be isolated as a consistent phenomenon and that the term merely signifies a rough composite of stereotypes, prejudices and criticisms towards Americans or the United States.[5][6]
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. Globally, increases in perceived anti-American attitudes appear to correlate with particular policies,[7] such as the Vietnam and Iraq[8] wars. For this reason, critics often argue the label is a propaganda item that is used to dismiss any censure of the United States as irrational.[9]
::In this introduction all cites are about american autors, just like if the anti-americanism where an north-american-wide phenomenon. In any article of Wikipedia, when a belief system its exposed, the article talk about what the belief system says, not about how his critics explain or try to criticize it. To say "the term merely signifies a rough composite of stereotypes, prejudices and criticisms" in the main section it's obviously a violation of NPOV; this should stay in a criticism section. It's so obvious this, to the point in the third paragraph the word "critics" it's used not to refer to critics of antiamericanism, but to talk about the critics of the critics of the antiamericanism.
Contemporary usage is often controversial. The term itself does not imply a critical attitude based on rational objections but rather a prejudiced system of thought and it is therefore rarely employed as a self-identifier (i.e. "I am anti-American...") as this implies bias. Instead, it is often used as a pejorative by those who object to another individual or group's stance toward the United States or its policies. Advocates of the significance of the term argue, for instance, that Anti-Americanism represents a coherent and dangerous ideological current, comparable to anti-Semitism.[12] Anti-Americanism has also been described as theory that seeks to frame the consequences of difficult US policy choices as evidence of a specifically American moral failure, as opposed to what may be unavoidable failures of a complicated foreign policy that comes with superpower status.[13]
::This is simple false. When people say "I'm anti-american" doesn't want to say they have an irrational bias. They want to say they're opposed to what they see as offensive/intrussive policies, imperialist practices, intrussive cultural mods, etc. The only true in this paragraph may be what critics of antiamericanism think of it... Again, this should go in some criticism section, at the end of the article, like in any other article about similar topics.
::In the section "History", there's some try to explain origins of anti-americanism as an eurocentric superiorism. That's simply false. The facts about the XVIII century may be true, but today's antiamericanism its a totally different topic, no related in any way. This supposed root it's also aplicable for nearby any other place in earth but Europe, almost always in a very more radical way. The anti-americanism isn't about europes ethnocentrics, and that seem obvious to me. By the way, I hope the lines about Sartre, existencialism and european communist parties was a joke, communist doesn't believes in souls, and Sartre was never a "status-quo" autor for the europeans communists parties.
Some critics argue that anti-Americanism ideology often correlates with other forms of perceived extremism, such as virulent nationalist movements, radical Islam, or communism.
::This paragraph it's extreme. Communism it's an extremism? nationalism it's an extremism? radical islamism it's an extremism? Are not "pro-americanism" associated with "extremisms"? whi capitalism? with christianism? with imperialism? I'm removing this now, guess no much to discuss about it. The next cite it's also been removed. It simply have no place in this article... put it in some article about french americanism or other thing. About the "racialism" topic, I think it's absolutely out of place... Not removing for now.
::I'll try to continue reviewing the article soon. I personally think, after sucesive mods, it's mostly a bunk of propaganda.IsmaelPR 20:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says that communism, radical Islam, and virulent nationalism are percieved as extremism, not that that they neccessarily are extremism. There's a difference there. I also suggest moving the portions of this article that you object to you into subheading of "Criticism of Anti-Americanism", rather than deleting them altogether. Furthermore, there is the question as to how many people really do consider themselves to be "anti-American", and what the term means to them. What qualifies as being "anti-American" really seems to be fairly subjective, and I'm curious as to how many people would label themselves that way. Asarelah 03:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are misrepresenting the lead paragraphs, Ismael. It does not state "The term merely signifies a rough composite of stereotypes, prejudices and criticisms" but rather "However, it has also been suggested that...the term merely signifies a rough composite of stereotypes, prejudices and criticisms." It's being offered not as a definition, but as a possibility that deliberately contrasts with the sentence above it. Go through the intro again. It follows a very definite A, not-A, structure in order to be NPOV. As for American authors, O'Connor is Australian. Naturally, American authors (along with some French) are publishing most often on this topic. Marskell 07:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "By whom?" Follow the links. It's a well-cited intro. The article has to talk about criticism and interpretation because the subject is widely disputed. Marskell 09:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marksell... Obviously I've followed the links. But, "perceived" extremism didn't have a link. Also, the problem is "Is percieved", "has also been suggested that" was stated passively in the text like a "neutral/world widely common" affirmation. Also, was stated in the main entrance of the article, where shouldn't be.IsmaelPR 18:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article says: 

message: "In Germany, anti-Americanism can be virulent, particularly among all the far-right and fascist political parties, Neo-Nazis, and the general population of German ultra-nationalists. [...]"
IMHO this should really be rewritten, being quite a confident and controversial piece of original research. Alternatively, references should be cited to support both the claim that Germany stands out with a high rate of "anti-Americanism", and that this sentiment is characteristically linked with far right groups.
In any case, it would be nice to differentiate more clearly between presenting viewpoints and the general consensus in the whole article. Some sections also seem to confuse criticism and hatred, e.g. mixing fascist propaganda and peaceful protestations in the illustration. The proposed list of motives is slightly controversial and incomplete. I suggest this topic might be too broad for a single article to treat fairly and accurately. 84.2.212.38 22:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Far right connection? 

message: Would someone like to go ahead and create :Category:Anti-Americanism to go with all of the other "anti-[country]" categories in the main :Category:Anti-national sentiment category?  Frankly, I'm quite surprised that this category hasn't been created yet.  --172.144.223.76 11:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me, but you may find that including some articles in your proposed category could cause a lot of argument. 195.137.96.79 05:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create related category? 

message: It would appear, to me at least, that American Nationalists are foaming-rabid because it looks to them like it's biased, while the Anti-American Zealots are pissed because... they think it's biased the other way. Therefore, I postulate the article has attained at least a veil of equality- neither side really likes it. 75.5.181.176 00:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I'm no expert at these large articles. However, I can find several examples where the other 191 countries see us as total dumbasses.     Quite frankly, it makes me cry. --Jnelson09 18:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on perceived stupidity 

message: This article, while it does lay out the various reasons for anti-Americanism, is written in a tone that suggests that anti-Americanism is unjustified in all cases, and very clearly takes the position of an American. The article should not include responses to anti-Americanism, or at least should only do so in a special section separate from the main body. Additionally, it makes a number assertions which are opinions, such as "Canada is a nation that often uses anti-Americanism as a way of fostering Canadian nationalism."
:Please sign your posts using four tildes. Instructions on how to do so are on top of the talk page when you edit it. Thank you. Asarelah 17:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Americans are the only ones who have experienced anti-Americanism.  I guess blacks in South Africa should be banned from editing anything to do with apartheid, blacks in all western countries should be banned from editing articles about segegration, and anyone who has ever had bigotry used against them should just shut up, huh, angry Damburger?  68.229.201.181 02:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Apologists 

message: you just to accept the fact that a large portion of the world hates America
for their imperialistic actions. no use in being in denial.
::That wasn't my point for calling it useless.  Like I say, I've lived abroad with haters like you.  I've had the bigotry right in my face.  I don't deny it one bit.  And I know you're raising another generation of bigots.  That's my point, that it's written so that everything anti-American is justified, just like your comment.  Keep spreading the hatred.  You must think it makes this world a better place.  68.229.201.181 02:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  in response to the people who think this article is useless... 

message: The Middle East section is largely taken up with this mans extremist views. This could be read to imply that people in the M.E. are only anti-american because they are radical islamists. Perhaps we could have more citations of people who didn't found terrorist organisations? Damburger 16:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much focus on Sayyid Qutb 

message: I can understand why people don't want this article merged with Opposition to US Foreign Policy. However, that being the case, this article should probably at least have a subsection that links to that article as the main article. 
There have been some points made that this article reads with a lot of bias, and that's largely because of the reason-rebuttal format of the article. Admittedly, most of the reasons listed here are not "valid" reasons and have legitimate rebuttals. But there are many perfectly fair reasons to be opposed to the United States as an entity.
That said, most of what's here would fall under the irrational prejudice category of anti-Americanism as a philosophy. However, since as the article mentions anti-Americanism is often used as a blanket term to cover anyone opposed to the US, it's worth our while to at least give focus to the other articles that cover more reasonable opposition to the USA. I think this is the ideal compromise that will allow this article to retain it's use as part of the discrimination series and still provide weight to those with legitimate grievances. --192.75.68.254 18:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would imagine they want it merged because certain POV editors who 'squat' on this article justify everything anti-American with US foreign policy.  Whenever I try to add any bigotry towards Americans from nonAmericans that doesn't fall under their we don't hate you -- we hate your government, talking point that keeps them from being called bigots, it's removed.  All the nonAmericans editing this article full well that the hatred isn't just about foreign policy.  That's why this article is useless.  68.229.201.181 02:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The counter argument is that the most level-headed of it is about foreign policy. There are some parts of the article that discuss wholly unreasonable and even bigotted reasons to dislike the US, and they should represent the fact that those points are wholly unreasonable and bigotted. However, especially in the regional section, no section should conclude that an entire people's dislike of the US is wholly reasonable or unreasonable. 192.75.68.254 14:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly my point, that in this article, editors have made it sound like foreign policy is the main reason for anti-Americanism.  The discussion is the true story, eh?  68.229.201.181 07:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since it's not being merged... 

message: I have removed this sentence:
:the use of anti-American ideologies may represent a way for nations to unify the country and bridge political divisions and/or to cover up evident flaws in their political or economic system
As it can be interpreted as saying that foreign countries opposed to America necessarily have flaws in their political or economic systems. A better alternative would be a specific example of a country that has done this (I don't doubt it has happened) - along with a source. Damburger 16:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of deleting it, how about changing it to something like "cover up perceived flaws"? You've made enough hostile edits in this article as it is. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-08-11 14:43 14:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You left a sentence fragment in its place. The wording does not advocate the statement (see "may"), and the rest of the paragraph has the logic and citation. At the same time, the wording of this sentence as long with the rest of the article has slowly deteriorated because of quick, fly-by edits. Tfine80 18:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I just read through parts of the article closely. It is truly a mess. I'll try to get up the energy for some copyediting, but a lot is needed. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-08-11 18:34 18:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cultural Freedom, you have undone several edits that I made to remove weasel words and suggestive language. Please refrain from doing this unless you have justified why in the talk page first. Damburger 21:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I need to justify all my changes, but, you (because you come from the Empire on which the Blood Never Dried, and that means you stand above your own standards?) do not? Sorry, pal, that doesn't fly. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-08-14 07:50 07:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Identiy 

message: The image is of a burning American flag with 48 stars, as it was before Alaska's statehood in 1959.  Can it be upgraded, so as not to inadvertently convey the POV that anti-Americanism is inherently an old concept? Digwuren 12:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I laughed when I read this, but you are absolutely right -- good eye! (It jumps out at me now, but I never noticed it before.) I just did a quick search, but didn't find any pictures of a burning 50-star flag that we can use, but there must be some out there. Anyone else? --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-08-15 11:23 11:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag 

message: I don't think that the quote from A.S. Markowitz belongs to that part of the article. His quote basicly says that European anti-Americanism is based on the need of a scapegoat and seems to have nothing to do with the national identy-amti-amricanism connection. I suggest that it will be removed, and if possible, replaced by another quote. --Sachaztan 12:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Identity 

message: By stating that it is motivated by anti-Americanism, and just uses anti-Neoliberalism as a cover. It says "Anti-globalist sentiments stem from perceptions that the United States was the inspiration and architect for globalization and neoliberal free trade policy..." Jacob Haller 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewrite the section, don't just blank it. Blanking is vandalism. Damburger 20:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually equating vandalsim and blanking is plain wrong but it is always a good idea to bring any edits that might be controversial here, as you have done. I think there may well be a connection between anti-Americansim and anti-globalization, ie its a manifestation of anti-americanism, eg with the left in Latin America. But in this case its ref'd and looks fine to em so I am reverting (but lets remember this is a content dispute and not vandalism). Finally its not possible top libel a huge, disperse movement like the anti-globalisation movement as its neither a person nor a legal entity, SqueakBox 20:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article defames the counter-globalization movement 

message: The US certainly has its own client states, particularly in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and southeast Asia, so it hardly makes sense to single out the USSR and PRC for doing the same thing on a smaller scale. Why is this even in the article? Jacob Haller 19:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's a standard rejoinder to the left. The client-state thing should be included as well, and you wouldn't have to look too far for a source. bobanny 05:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Markowitz Quote is BS 

message: There is no mention of the offensive "Manifest Destiny" and other jingoistic americanisms which cause such amusement for the rest of the world. Also the boorish vulgarity of americans isn't detailed and the mainstream acceptance of slave labour (Mexican illegals, not that they wanted them) and xenophobic groups such as the NRA/KKK and others isn't addressed. Anti-Americanism is treated as being groundless as a basic premise which is clearly not the case.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.238.150 (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SOFIXIT.  Find and cite WP:reliable sources that express those ideas and add them to the article. Dlabtot 20:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manifest Destiny 

message: "Anti-Americanism, often Anti-American sentiment, is criticism..." this statement is plainly obtuse and to assert that a special exception should be made (special pleading) would clearly be biased. For example;
In falsificationist science, a proponent of a theory is still critical of it by way of trying to find tests that have the possibility to prove their own theory wrong. One for example can not be a proponent of evolution at the same time as being anti-evolution, yet the assumption that criticism makes one anti-anything says that it is the case.
This breaks the law of non-contradiction as do other examples.
Again, I was once critical of a pizza cooked at my favourite pizza Bar. I still love the pizza bar and it's my favourite. I'm not anti-my-favourite-pizza bar.
People all over the world critique books that the love every day! Books that they love aren't books that these critics are against.
And say for those who are trying to get a loved one to quit smoking, by necessity criticising them and their habit. Is the author of the mentioned anti-critical-thinking passage going to tell these people that they aren't just criticising an unhealthy practice but are also anti-their-loved-one? Obtuse.
Criticism per se isn't anti-anything. Trying to paint criticism of something automatically as anti-whatever is usually just an oft repeated straw man by interested parties trying to avoid scrutiny by demonizing people who dare disagree with them. Heck, it's done by kids when they accuse their parents of hating them when they get told off. 
The only way out of this contradiction is for the thing being criticised to be anti-criticism. This is to say that in order for this article's assertion to be true, free speech and free thought (and therefore free criticism) could potentially be anti-American is to assume that America is intrinsically anti-free speech and anti free-thought and I don't think anyone could reasonably substantiate that claim. Ergo, the above reductios apply, and special pleading is taking place.
As long as there is a presupposition that criticising America equates with anti-Americanism, clearly a blatant act of special pleading, this Wikipedia article is asking for a suspension of reasoning not applied to other perspectives or situations. Giving special dispensation, where the same rules of logic, tests and potential reductios as applied anywhere else are thrown aside is preferencing one argument in a way that other arguments aren't. It's bias.
You just can't pass this off as NPOV. It's OP-ED material.
--121.45.52.233 13:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever wrote that intro was misquoting the dictionary reference. I have now corrected this. However, the rest of the lead is fine and NPOV.--Alabamaboy 14:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obtuse 

message: I don't necessarily disagree with 68.121.150.10's edits, but they miss the point of how Wikipedia functions. Material in Wikipedia is supposed to come from published sources, and you have added a lot of stuff that is essentially your own views. Also, you added all of it to the intro, which is supposed to be a concise summary of what is in the body of the article. You made the intro bigger than the body. I would suggest you read up on some of the Wikipedia policy statements, and then try again. Please cite sources for your edits, however. --Marvin Diode 14:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 68.121.150.10, please do not delete referenced, consensus material and replace it with unreferenced text. As Marvin Diode said, you must cite your sources. The lead is a consensus version which the editors of this page have worked out over many years. The current lead addresses all the issues you raise. For example, you said "Are you saying that I'm anti-American for opposing "American policies" i.e. the policies of the Bush administration?" Well, the lead addresses that with a referenced sentence that says there are some who "argue the label is a propaganda item that is used to dismiss any censure of the United States as irrational." Anyway, if you want to make your changes, first seek consensus on this talk page for them. You will also need to provide references for the information you seek to add.--Alabamaboy 19:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The previous lead was not a consensus. I rewrote it twice, but was reverted both times on the grounds that it was "consensus." However, the lead that currently exists is even more biased. Bsharvy 07:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 68.123.140.142, blatently stating that you will continue to make these unreferenced POV changes, when other editors have disagreed on them, is not how Wikipedia works. I personally don't care what the lead says as long as the editors of this article agree on a consensus or near-consensus version and also provide reliable sources for the information. I have protected the article until this dispute is resolved. And please note I am not supporting the current version--I merely went with the version that had the most referenced material. Based on what Bsharvy says, there are also concerns with this version. Please work out on the talk page the issues with the lead and once people agree, I will unprotect.--Alabamaboy 13:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note that isn't my version. I'm staying out of the discussion; people should discuss the lead and decide what they want it to say. Once an item is okayed by consensus, I'll add it it to the lead. When people agree on the overall lead, I'll unprotect the page.--Alabamaboy 23:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Consensus is when the vast majority of the article's editors agree on something. See Wikipedia:Consensus for more. With edit disputes, the way it usually works is if someone disagrees over the wording, you try to find wording that both editors accept. In this case, agreement between a number of editors will have to be reached.--Alabamaboy 00:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note that the sections below this concern a couple of action steps regarding particular wording or items in the lead. Please state your opinion of those items. Also, feel free to raise any other items you want addressed. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 68.121.150.10 

message: Why is Africa missing from the Regional attitudes section? Angry Aspie 22:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Africa 

message: The word is more often used to slur opponents of specific US policies than to describe any hostility to the American people. Have any of you ever encountered the phrase in the latter sense? Jacob Haller 18:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who claim the latter tend to argue it's the same as the former. Bsharvy 13:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Americans are fat, stupid, greedy, lazy -- I've encountered all these opinions out in the real world (not just online). Obviously, people who hold such opinions about Americans aren't going to be open-minded about American policies. 71.131.23.199 (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual use 

message: I corrected "According to Noam Chomsky, the concept it totalitarian" to "... is totalitarian." Someone reverted this.
I changed "critics who feel it is used to dismiss any censure of the United States as irrational." to "critics who note that it is used to dismiss any censure of the United States or its policies as irrational." Someone reverted this. I think the original phrasing was dismissive. Jacob Haller 18:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be my fault. I was trying to get the article to the closest consensus version I could make out. Perhaps this should be the first change people decide on. Are people ok changing this sentence to what Jacob suggests? Unless there are objections, I will make the change.--Alabamaboy 22:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You might just unlock the page; after two days, the anon has probably dozed off. Marskell 19:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Alabamaboy 20:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that the deletions of OR by Marskell have substantially helped the article. --Marvin Diode 21:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's with these reversions? 

message: With the polarization of politics in the United States present today, shouldn't there be a reference to how some factions in the US deem rival factions to be "Anti-American"? Toad of Steel 02:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Considerations of internal American politics 

message: Would someone explain what happened to the North America section? There is a section, but it's empty... I find it difficult to believe that there is no "anti-americanism" in north america... If there is no such thing, could we not delete it? mattbuck 13:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if the Westboro Baptist Church count as anti-american. Ditto the KKK. mattbuck 17:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I've started it. Feel free to chip in. mattbuck 09:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hah, Canada is one of the most anti-American western nations on earth; "pass time" my ass. Hey, at least we're not completely irrelevant. The section on NA should be long very detailed. Travis Cleveland (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  North America 

message: "Anti-Americanism, often Anti-American sentiment, is defined as being "opposed or hostile to the United States of America, its people, its principles, or its policies"
Does fitting into any one those categories really make someone Anti-American? I know it's quoted, but shouldn't it say "and its policies."? Most people who object to certain American foreign policies do not consider themselves anti-american. They may dislike its government's policies, but have American friends and enjoy American culture. The anti-europeanism page labels it as discrimination in the 1st sentence, which I agree with. Isn't anti-americanism irrational blind hatred of all things American (no separation between its government and its people)? Surely being opposed to its policies is not "anti-american"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.26.29 (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I asked an anti-American why he hates America.
He went on about militaristic values, economy, and religion... and I responded so what?
Saudi Arabia is wealthy and Islamic, Iran, Iraq, and Taliban is highly militaristic, what more do you want in this world? Then I asked him if he would blow himself up, he said yes so he could go to shahid heaven "shahid beheshti". I asked him, what if that's not god wanted you to do as a purpose of your life? Then he stopped being blind, and his repulsiveness slowed down, and started philosiphizing like a gentleman.
I'm anti-american in vague, but only towards george bush (the way he represents america).
--Storkian aka iSoroush Talk  23:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The irony.... 

message: How is Anti-Americanism not a form of Americanophobia, but Anti-French is a a form of Francophobia? Maybe the introduction of either was those articles needs to be rewritten (This text is also in the Anti-French sentiment in the United States). IronCrow (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've wondered that too. What's the deal? нмŵוτнτ 03:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Americanophobio/Francophobia 

message: We have anti-Americans contributing most of the edits to this article; it's kinda like a bunch of Nazis editing the article on anti-Semitism! I am marking this article, and I will be contributing alot to it, starting off by blasting down the POV. This article reads like anti-Americanism is okay, and natural – completely inappropriate.  Travis Cleveland (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you believe that people being critical of ANY given sociopolitical entity is both not ok and unnatural? E.G. Is a person who feels anti-Icelandic sentiment expressing feelings that are not "ok" or not "natural"? 58.165.212.142 (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The true Irony 

message: :The following post preceded the AfD discussion.
This article consists primarily of 1) a dictionary definition which is so vague, it doesn't clearly identify a coherent phenomenon, 2) links to various musings and free-associations on the meaning of the term, 3) links to polemics using the term. The article itself, in the lead, suggests that the term has no meanigful applicability because it is so vague. Then it ignores that point, and goes on to produce a hodge-podge of interpretations. An encyclopedia article needs to be more than report on the inconsistent interpretations and usage of a term.
The problem in writing about this term is evident in the amount of weasel-wording it uses. Virtually the entire article is written in the passive voice, e.g. "It has been suggested that anti-Americanism is...." Followed by something like "It has been countered that anti-Americanism is...." Generally, no reason is given for why those particular suggestions are more important or accurate than any others, leaving a wide-open door for perceived-POV-pushing. This is no way to write an article, but it is unavoidable with this topic.
An encylopedia entry needs to be on a well-defined topic. This one isn't. The result is a rambling usage guide for a controversial term. That's not encyclopedic.
Bsharvy (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied from AfD 

message: When the earthquake caused a tidal wave to wash over SE Asian, did the citizens of most countries run to their governments and their fellow countrymen for an appropriate first response to the tragedy?  NO, they looked westward to see what "The Great Satan" would do for the victims of that tragic event.  They critically asked where was the United States, when these victims needed a warning, but then just as quickly looked westward again for a solution, and it came in the form of two former US Presidents asking for support in rescuing and assisting the disaster victims.  The two previous rulers of "The Great Satan" traveled around the world asking us, "Will you help."  And the answer came....it came from the West, yes we will.  Money, materiel, ships and people came to the East, in droves.  
Why does the world look westward, to those they despise most, for answers and action?  Why would "righteous" people look to Satan for help?  They wouldn't, but unrighteous people would look to Jesus for help (read your Bible).  Because they know deep in their own hearts that what they say about America is not what they know about America.  Satan never said to feed your enemy.  Who fed the multitude in the Bible, who healed the sick in the Bible, and who made war with the hypocrites in the Bible?  Was is Satan?  Anti-Americans judge themselves.  Matthew 12:25-29; Matthew 25:32-46--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 20:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to say that though some people might proclaim that they are 'Anti-American' quite often the term is used as a false accusation by the right-wing media against people who disagree with one or other aspect of American domestic or foreign policy. For instance objecting to the Iraq War or capital punishment in America does not necessarily mean you are anti-American, though the right-wing media will often assert that this is the case. A cognate term used by a former super-power is 'Anti-Soviet'. A somewhat obsolete term with regard to the French is Anti-Gallicanism, which in the days of 'freedom fries' is perhaps due for a revival. There are several pubs in England called 'The Anti-Gallican' but I'm possibly the only one who knows what it means...Colin4C (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The American government is selective in whom they aid. If there is a geo-strategic-commercial reason to pour money into a country to prevent the spread of communism, islamism etc they will do it. If not, not. East Africa gets most of its aid, not from the USA but from the People's Republic of China. As with the American gov this is not given for humanitarian reasons. Wake up and smell the coffee. Colin4C (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Methinks you are too steeped in your own POV.  Is the U.S. totally altruistic at all times even to the detriment of its own interests?  Of course not. Is the U.S. altruistic in times of crisis generally without thinking of its own crass interests? Yes — at least going by some past examples.  Does the U.S. seek more strdently to aid its impoverished allies than it strives to aid impoverished avowed enemies? No doubt.  Is any of that a suprise? No. I'm steeped in my own POV here, but not overwhelmed by it. I didn't have a lot of time to look for stats, but I did find here, USAID reported on September 30, 2005, that in FY2005, the United States had provided $134.3 million in emergency assistance to Niger and surrounding countries, which have been stricken by drought and locust infestation." — also, see figure 1 in that document which, unless I misread it, shows over US$3B in foreign aid to Africa in 2005, over US$2B of that being non-food aid according to Figure 2; Table 1 gives country-by-country figures. I don't know what Chinese aid amounted to.. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Americans really do think they're so generous, and it's interesting because the government really isn't. Here's an article citing a study that shows how 64% of Americans (!!) thought foreign aid was the largest component of federal expenditure: . As a portion of our GDP, we are the stingiest nation in the industrialized world. Compare the $39 billion in foreign aid to the $489 billion in American military expenditure. Facts don't lie -- and with them you can start to get a picture of worldwide opinion on America. Njfuller (talk) 16:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No question -- Americans aren't generally very well informed about such things. Some people when asked a question which they lack the information to answer will make a wild guess rather than say, "I really don't know."  A quick check here placed the USA 18th in percent of GDP committed to foreign aid, with a 3% commitment. This source places the 2005 US GDP at $12,416,510,000,000 — 3% of that would be about $372 million in U.S. governmental foreign aid contributions.  I don't have any idea where to look for stats on this, but I have heard it reported that nongovernmental charitable giving from Americans in international crisis situations (e.g., the Asian Tsunami) generally outstrips U.S. Governmental aid. Perhaps someone with more research skills in this area than I can research this and add some stats about this to the article along with supporting cites. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick note: the 3% that your source mentions isn't foreign aid to toal GDP, but actually foreign aid to military expenditure (which itself is disturbing). Foreign aid is somewhere around 1.6% of the federal discretionary budget and less than 0.17% of the GDP. American private giving is nowhere near per capita giving by European countries and as a whole is somewhat smaller than federal foreign aid. The idea of generous America is really just media and political hype Njfuller (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. However, I don't see an item in the article which relates to this. I'm not clear how these observations relate to the topic of the article, but if there is a relation it might be useful to mention this — citing that supporting source you mention. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Americans always looking outward 

message: The article needs a lead that describes the phenomenon, anti-Americanism, in the editors' own words. Note a description of a phenomenon is not a usage guide: an encyclopedia is not a dictionary. The decription needs to be neutral and complete. If we cannot achieve consensus on a lead, the article is a lost cause. Anybody want to go first? Bsharvy (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I said it could be a source.  I never said it was automatic.  Read carefully.  Can we back to the matter at hand? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 01:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The First Step to Improvement