Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:26, 19 March 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-Americanism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 10 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

International relations This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Discrimination This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 February 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-Americanism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

RFC: Is Neutrality in Dispute?

Template:RFCpol

There is disagreement over whether reasonable questions have been raised regarding the neutrality of this article. As a result, some editors are deleting every effort to add a warning tag that says "Its neutrality is disputed." In addition to this Talk page, there was an AfD discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Americanism

Note: the question is not whether you think the article is neutral, but whether reasonable questions have been raised about its neutrality.

Yes, neutrality is in dispute. Editors have disputed the neutrality of this article throughout its history. The basic objection is that nothing objective can be said about this topic besides a dictionary definition. I dispute the neutrality in AfD, many places in these Talk pages, and here . --Bsharvy (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a question of 'objectivity' but of balance. Only God has an objective view of reality. We are only human wikipedia editors. All topics in the universe are disputed. To be sure, some people are very sure of themselves but that is not 'objectivity'. If we followed your reasoning neutrality tags would have to be fixed to every article in the wikipedia which would be absurd. Your attempt to have this article deleted failed. Get over it. For clarification here is the wikipedia policy on NPOV. See especially the bit I have italicised:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, writing clearly about each side; but they are not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."

You are of course free to dispute wikipedia policy but I suggest that this Talk page is not the best place to do so.

Colin4C (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OBVIOUSLY, people are disputing if it's neutral. Rachel63 (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Au contraire you and Bsharvy (who very oddly seem to think and write in the same way...) seem to be disputing the wikipedia notion of what neutrality is. According to the wikipedia neutrality is not some unknowable 'objectivity' but a balance of views pro and contra. This article starts with a sourced definition and then gives a variety of views exactly in line with wikipedia prescripts. If it was one sided it would be POV, but it isn't. Colin4C (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I was going to say the same about you and Webhamster. (Go make a sockpuppet report if you're serious. If you're not serious, these accusations are disruptive.) I dispute the neutrality of the article. Period. This article calls virtually everything under the sun anti-American. It slants the application of the term toward an accusation of prejudice. It--Wikipidedia--accuses people of anti-Americanism. In other words, it is full of accusations of prejudice not attributed to a significant source. It is extremely light on the reasons people give for being anti-American, e.g. being anti-superpower. -- Bsharvy (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as the discussion of anti-Americanism is sourced that is okay. Misplaced Pages is not about original research but reporting and explaining what other writers have said about the subject. The bibliography shows that there are scores of books and articles on the subject. Whether you agree with what they say is immaterial. This is a complex issue but you throwing a spanner in the works is not likely to solve it. Knowledge comes from a dialectic, not bad-tempered demands and accusations. Colin4C (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

An article can be sourced and biased. If the only views you represent are pro-American, it doesn't matter whether the views are sourced: the article is biased. --Bsharvy (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, from reading it and the talk pages it definitely seems to be rather biased and clearly many other people think so. I believe a not-NPOV tag would be resonable. --Tombomp (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

Do you have any NPOV issues with this article? If so please state them here so that we can address them and then rectify them Colin4C (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC):

The lead is misleading and biased. The ref. for the opening statement is a dictionary definition, which doesn't include "culture." The source doesn't support the claim. I checked a second dictionary, and it also doesn't include the term "culture." It did include "government" and the first ref. (and much of the article) refers to "policies," so government obviously does belong. The rest of the lead is slanted, and has weasel-words problems. {3 of the first 4 references} are all the same person (Paul Hollander), yet this is being used to give a broad, leading overview of the topic. Weasel words: "Anti-Americanism has been described as a...." This comment is sourced, of course, to Paul Holander. If the lead were written without weasel words, it would say something like "According to Paul Hollander.... According to Paul Hollander... According to Paul Hollander..." Would anybody seriously defend that as a NEUTRAL lead? I daresay anti-Americanism has also been described as a "glorious revolution" Why don't you put that in the lead? The article is constructed to suggest that any criticism or opposition to American hegemony or policies comes from hate, suspcion, or prejudice. What is this sentence supposed to mean: "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." A complication of what? The implication is that the default assumption is anti-American sentiment is prejudiced. Obviously (unless you're a right-wing nutjob) some anti-american sentiment is reasoned and some is not. There is no complication. -- {This article} is essentialy a free-association on a dictionary definition, with various "sources" haphazzardly tossed in. The sources tend to be essays, and as such merely document claims about how people have interpreted the term. An encyclopedia article needs to be more than report on interpretations of a term. The article tends to present these interpretations in passive-voice weasel words, e.g. "Anti-Americanism has been described as a belief that configures the United States and the American way of life as threatening at their core." Reference for that claim is just an essay in which somebody says that. There is no partocilar reason to think this is a definining, prominent, or correct usage of the term, or an important theory. Another example: "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." Passive voice weasel-words, not indicating why the topic is actually meaningful. Most of the presentation is also slanted to present criticism of the US as bigotry. It also consistently misrepresents the subject of much so-called anti-American sentiment. Many of the examples are objections to American hegemony, not American culture per se. For example, people object to small family-run restaraunts in a small country going out of business because of the influx of Pizza Huts and Burger Kings. That is not fairly represented as "hostility to American culture"; it is an objection to American hegemony. There is a difference. Frankly, the article smacks of a right-wing political agenda. I question whether it would serve a useful purpose even if cleaned up. The term "anti-Americanism" is highly interpretive, corrupted by political ideology, and denotes no clearly defined set of phenomena. This article should be deleted -- 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 encyclopedia 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.

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?

Catgirl's suggestion that anti-Americanism is like racism is exactly why this article is hopeless. I don't think anti-Americanism is like racism or bigotry at all, and neither do any of the people I know who self-identify as anti-American. Neither do some prominent commentators, like Noam Chomsky (he says the opposite, that the label denotes bigotry against those who criticize US policies). So: to say anti-Americanism is bigotry is POV-pushing. To say anti-Americanism is not bigotry is POV-pushing. There is nothing that can be said that isn't POV-pushing. The only non-POV apporach is a usage guide, and that is not encyclopedic.

As for Mattbuck's comment: What "worldwide sentiment" does it document? Sentiment about the meaning of the term? That makes the article an elaborate dictionary entry: not encyclopedic. Sentiment about a phenomenon? What phenomenon? Nobody agrees. -- I've worked on several controversial articles, but none of them had this one's main problem. When I worked on the Bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki article, it was very heated, edit wars, etc. BUT: everybody knew what the bombings were. Nobody can agree on what phenomenon we are talking about when we talk about anti-Americanism. It simply isn't a term that denotes anything precisely. Disagreeing with the war in Iraq is called anti-American, so is wanting to commit mass genocide against Americans, so is objecting to a Starbucks replacing a family-run cafe in Paris. There is nothing coherent here. -- The problem isn't that "anti-Americanism" never refers to anything; the problem is that refers to just about anything--something racist, something reasonable, political dissent, terrorism, Burger King.... Pasting a list of article names which contain the term "anti-Americanism" (and many which don't) doesn't advance the discussion. I daresay many deleted articles have topics which appear in the titles of papers. -- I guess I wasn't clear, but I'm not sure how to be clearer. Anti-Americanism is not like abortion, because everybody knows what abortion is (in a non-scientific sense). The disagreements don't center on what is abortion. In contrast, every assertion of what is anti-Americanism constitutes POV-pushing. That is why the article never actually says what is anti-Americanism, other than quoting one dictionary. That is why almost every single claim the article makes about anti-Americanism must be in weasel words: "It has been suggested that anti-Americanism is....". If the editors cannot say, in their own words, what their topic is, they cannot write an article about it. -- The majority of the term's usage is an interpretation. It is an interpretation to say the French want to limit American influence because they dislike America. It is an interpretation to say people oppose the Iraq war because of hostility toward America. It may be objective to say terrorism against Americans is anti-Americanism. But is any editor willing to say, in the article, which claims of anti-Americanism are objectively grounded and which are not? No, because that would be POV-pushing. Nobody can write a neutral, complete description of anti-Americanism and that means nobody can a neutral article on it.

Edit: adding my sig --Bsharvy (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't neutral because it suggests that being opposed to any aspect of the US is prejudice. Also the word itself just can't be applied in a neutral way. It's an accusation. So, this article is accusing people and groups of prejudice when it calls them anti-American. Rachel63 (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The subject of an article can be non-neutral, it's the narrative that can't in relation to the topic itself. I do wish you could understand that. --WebHamster 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The narrative in relation to the topic itself isn't neutral, because the narrative accuses people of prejudice. I do wish you could get that through your thick egotistical skull. Rachel63 (talk) 02:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Now now, we wouldn't want you getting blocked for personal attacks now would we? We'll save that for the editors who think you are Bsharvy's sockpuppet. Regardless, I thought we'd already covered the fact that being anti something is being prejudiced against that something. Look further up, you'll see the dictionary definition. People being anti-American are prejudiced against America, that's why they are anti it. Being prejudiced isn't just about disliking someone for their colour, or for their religion. Someone who is anti-American is prejudiced towards Americans. Is English your second language? --WebHamster 02:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So 'Rachel' you agree exactly with Bsarvy? You are using exactly the same spurious arguments viz "Nobody can write a neutral, complete description of anti-Americanism and that means nobody can a neutral article on it." Do you - like Bsarvy - think the article should have been deleted and that because that endeavor failed it should have tags on it for all time? The arguments used in the POV attempt to get this article deleted were found to be unjustified. The article was found to be worthy and therefore can be edited like any other article. Affixing permanent tags to articles is against wikipedia policy. 12:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Colin4C (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is some seasonally affective process at work on Anti-Americanism. Every spring for the last four years there has been a flare-up on this article (last year it was in May)... Another flare-up often occurs in the fall.

I digress. The lead and Use of the term have been gone over repeatedly for a few years. They follow a clear A, not-A structure. It's a belief system (A); it can't be isolated as definite phenomenon (not-A); it's comparable to antisemitism (A); it's a propaganda term (not-A). In short, the opening sections try to balance widely divergent viewpoints. (I have added a covering note for the first sentence: all of people, policies, and culture get mentioned in relation to the topic.)

I won't speak for the body, which has changed over time. It doesn't seem too bad at the moment, although some things appear to have been lost to shortening. The problems with American service personnel in Korea and Japan were clearly worth a mention. Australia, by contrast, should be shortened to maybe two sentences. Marskell (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Good article. Plenty of reliable sources. --Newbyguesses - Talk 22:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We are having trouble with disruptive editor(s) though at the moment which is causing us grief. Colin4C (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We certainly are having trouble with disruptive editors. Wh has been blocked in the last week? Igor Berger and WebHamster . Would you support a topic-ban on these proven disruptors? --Bsharvy (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That was uncalled for Bsharvy. Someone should now request arbitration before this gets even more out of hand. IronCrow (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Can someone please explain what the issues are that caused the locking of the article? (I can research that myself but I'm sure someone can explain that in 30 seconds.)  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't think anyone's edit-warred on this recently. Some tags have been coming and going, and there have certianly been controversial edits, but they've been rather well-spaced. I see no real revert warring here. WebHamster was blocked for some pretty creative interpretation of 3RR. Igor was blocked for something unrelated, and has only made a single edit to this article that I can see. This topic is controversial, sure, but the full-protect and other recent actions frankly baffle me. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:18, 10 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I will ask the admin, then. By the way, I hope we can resolve this without bothering for arbitration... is the last step of dispute resolution on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The Arbitration process is governed by the Arbitration policy.
It is important to note that while the committee will sanction users or place subject areas under restrictions, it will not rule on the content of articles. Please do not request decisions from the committee on content, as these requests will not be accepted.
 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 14:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, trust me, there will be no arbitration for this. This is just another controversial topic, like many, many others we have on Misplaced Pages. ArbCom is for more pressing issues. They wouldn't even accept a case like this. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:59, 10 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the protection to semi-protection. If you guys feel there is no edit war going on, then I won't stand in your way in making constructive edits. Jauerback/_dude. 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jaurback. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:17, 10 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Enough fighting. If someone is reverting and reverting to get their POV, and taking advantage of the 3RR, even if they do not break the rule, something is wrong. We should follow the consensus of all the editors envolved. Igor Berger (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is doing anything like that, Igor. That's why the page was unprotected. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:33, 10 Mar 2008 (UTC)

At least one statement in the article isn't supported by the the cited source at all (use of sulfur/sulphur in british teaching), having lots of sources isn't necessarily a sign of a good article. Some of the wording still seems weaselly as well, "The usual criticisms" for example.--Sully (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism the definition

With regards to User:Bsharvy conserns, I realized Anti-Americanism as hatrated and hostility towards American people definition is wrong.

I recommend this to be written to the article, but as you know the article has been protected from editing!

Anti-Americanism is not being prejudice against American people but a political ideology opposing American Imperialism.

Replace this, and it will make the article more encyclopidic--->

It is not, "Anti-Americanism, often anti-American sentiment, is opposition or hostility to the people or culture of the United States"

Please read, American exceptionalism

It is like anti-zionism. It is an ideology that opposes a zionist ideology, not a hostility and hatrated towards zionist.

Check out this satirical poem by Kipling, The White Man's Burden. It will help you understand the Anti-Americanism political idiology. Igor Berger (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism is different things to different people. There are people who consider themselves anti-America, who have hostility toward the people, and others who have a hostility toward its ideals. Some are hostile towards both. It's a subjective term, so all common uses should be included, and are. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:39, 10 Mar 2008 (UTC)

What you saying makes sense. Maybe we should combine your definition with mine.Igor Berger (talk)

The current definition in the article already covers all uses: "...opposition or hostility to the people, culture or policies..." Equazcion •✗/C • 14:55, 10 Mar 2008 (UTC)

So just unprotect it, it is kind of silly to protect everything in site! If someone edit wars it, in support of their POV, they know were to go. I only did one edit to the article..:) Igor Berger (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: once you have agreed on a text, you may add {{editprotected}} here. Also, I've asked the admin who locked the article for more explanation. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 15:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the current definition already covers all uses. There's no need to request an edit. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:05, 10 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Does opposition to Israeli policies constitute anti-semitism? I wouldn't think so. Same thing goes for opposition to U.S. policies, it's entirely unrelated. --SABER 17:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree but this article is not about our own opinions (original research) but what other authors attempt to convey when they use the term 'Anti-Americanism'. They may be way off beam or illogical but its not our place to correct them. We don't have to engage in the controversy ourselves in order to report it. I have strong views on American Imperialism etc etc but I am not going to use this article as a platform to broadcast them. Colin4C (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Oposition to the creation of the State of Israel is anti-zionism, because the political ideology of zionism supports the creation of Israel and states that all Jewish people should go back to their homeland. Saber, when you say anti-semitism you are talking about a race of people not the state policy of those people. A movement to eradicate Jewish people would be seen as anti-semitism. Any hatred imposed on those people would be seen as anti-semitism. We should add American imperialism to the article. It is not up to us to agree or disagree with the political view. It is not original research, as you can see the anti-Americanism movement started long time ago, as supported by Kipling's poem. Igor Berger (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The current definition has some problems:

1. It logically includes pro-life activism (opposition/hostility to policy), yet common usage doesn't
2. It doesn't specify prejudice, yet the article does later on, and the article tends to assume it means prejudice
3. Having a coherent subject for an article isn't the same as having a complete defintiion for a word. A single term can have multiple definitions that require different articles. I don't see any connection at al between prejudiced interest in terrorism against innocent Americans and an anti-war protest, yet we write about them here as if they are the same thing

• Another general problem with this article is that it calls things anti-American. Misplaced Pages absolutely cannot make accusations of prejudice in political matters, and generally shouldn't be making interpretations of political matters either. Yet, all claims of anti-Amricanism are an interpretation.
• Finally, this article is heavily biased toward presenting all criticism of the US as "anti-Americanism" in the sense of prejudice. It pays little attention to the reasons people have for their opposition, such as being anti-superpower, or anti-hegemony. It dismisses these ideas with the label, i.e. the article advances the use of the term as pro-America propaganda. --Bsharvy (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• I requested mediation about 24 hours ago. I assumed the page block stemmed from that, but maybe not. So far, I haven't seen any response from the Misplaced Pages:MC --Bsharvy (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It logically includes pro-life activism? I don't quite follow. Are you saying that it logically includes every possible political viewpoint held by any American person? The definition points to an overall encapsulation of American culture, which will of course include many, many things. That doesn't necessarily mean that saying "Anti-America" means "Anti-Chevy", "Anti-Ketchup", or "Anti-Anti-Abortion" specifically. It's a more general term. Your interpretation seems like a nitpicky stretch of technicality. As for the specific reasons for Anti-Americanism, I think it's time you added a section on that to the article, perhaps with subsections for each individual reason you just named. I think that would be a good addition to the article. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:59, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

The definition: "...opposition or hostility to the people, culture or policies of the United States." Pro-life activism is oppostion/hostility to a policy of the United States. Why is it less anti-American than opposition to a military action? --Bsharvy (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't repeat the same question and avoid what I just said. I raised some very specific points just now and I'd appreciate not having to repeat them. Kindly respond to them. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:22, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how anything you said was applicable to what I said. Chevies and ketchup are not policy. --Bsharvy (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The definition includes culture, too, not just policy. So by your reasoning, this definition denotes that Anti-American means Anti-ketchup or Anti-hot dogs. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:20, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

OK, the definition as written may include being anti-Chevy or anti-hot-dog. When Americans got pissed at France a few years ago and boycotted Bourdeux wine and ate "Freedom Fries", that was anti-French according to the general "anti-" definition around here. So if being anti-Bourdeux and anti-"French"-fries is anti-French, then being anti-Chevy and anti-hot-dog can be anti-American. --Bsharvy (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad we could settle this :) Equazcion •✗/C • 03:56, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Just to avoid further fighting over article tags:

The specific tags posted at this article are to inform people of certain possibilities. There is a possibility that the article is unencyclopedic. It is evidenced merely by an editor feeling that way, and the tag says as much, very clearly. It isn't something that needs consensus in order to appear, and a previous "Keep" at AfD, even for the reason that is was deemed encyclopedic, does not allay all present and future concerns that article may still be, or still become, unencyclopedic. So please kindly leave this and other tags alone, at least for now. As long as an article issue is the subject of discussion on its talk page, a tag that expresses a concern over it should be allowed to stay. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:51, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

From what I am reading on the article talk page, Bsharvey does raise valid points. I like what you said about leaving the tags alone. We should all get over the tags and discuss the article. I hope other editors do the same and we can start improving the article not warring over a tag! Igor Berger (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So if an editor adds another 5 tags is it forbidden to other editors to remove them? I am saying this because Bsharvy has just added another tag as soon as the article was unprotected. Can he add as many tags as he likes without providing justification for them on the Talk page? For instance should the factual accuracy tag stay despite no one listing even one item which they even suspect is not factual here on the Talk page? Is the number of tags here dependent on Bsarvy whims? He stated above that this article couldn't be improved by editing: "Some problems are systemic and can't be fixed by simple editing" therefore he must want the tags to be a permanent fixture - as editing is the only way that articles can be improved. Is it wikipedia policy to have good articles like this one lumbered with a tag-farm because one editor wants them there but can't be bothered to justify them by examples? Even though he lost the deletion debate this article is still branded unencyclopediac on his say so. Does he have an absolute veto on other peoples opinions on whether this article is encyclopediac forever? This is a very good article and one editors POV shouldn't dictate how the article should be edited. I repeat: according to Bsharvy's philosophy this article CAN'T be improved, even if Einstein himself edited it: "Some problems are systemic and can't be fixed by simple editing". If we accept Bsarvy's view the tags have to remain permanent fixtures: absolutely contrary to wikipedia policies. As to possibilities: there is a possibility that every article in the wikipedia has same supposed faults as this one. To be logical all wikipedia articles should have as many tags as this one. Colin4C (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Bsharvy has stated things he finds inaccurate -- the definition discussion above is an example. I'm beginning to think the "unencyclopedic" tag is questionable, due to its unique wording -- it states that an editor thinks the article should be deleted, yet we have such a recent failed AfD; I think since a failed AfD shows consensus that the article should not be deleted, such a statement probably doesn't belong in this article. I won't remove the tag myself, but I'd be fine with someone else removing it. It may even be appropriate, since it seems unclear what the tags refer to specifically, for them to all be removed and then replaced one at a time should en editor feel the need -- however if anyone does replace a tag, they should justify it here first by stating specific reasons and context within the article. That's how I'd handle this, if asked. Again I'm not going to do this myself, but would support it if someone else did it. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:56, 11 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Just to add that obeying the will of the minority rather than the majority raises fascinating philosophical and practical issues. It would mean that if in the Deletion debate: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Americanism the votes had been six for deletion and three against deletion, rather than what did happen - six against and three for - then the article should have been kept. If one believes that the we should obey the will of the minority rather than the majority then this outcome logically follows and should be implemented in all wikipedia articles. Colin4C (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Just to avoid further fighting over article tags:

The specific tags posted at this article are to inform people of certain possibilities. There is a possibility that the article is unencyclopedic. It is evidenced merely by an editor feeling that way, and the tag says as much, very clearly. It isn't something that needs consensus in order to appear, and a previous "Keep" at AfD, even for the reason that is was deemed encyclopedic, does not allay all present and future concerns that article may still be, or still become, unencyclopedic. So please kindly leave this and other tags alone, at least for now. As long as an article issue is the subject of discussion on its talk page, a tag that expresses a concern over it should be allowed to stay."

• Good ideas. Take your own advice. --Bsharvy (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I'm sorry you're having trouble dealing with that. If consensus was that the article is encyclopedic, the article is encyclopedic. It would be one thing if the failed AfD were a long time ago, but this was not even a month ago. If everyone handled that the way you are, every article with a failed AfD would see its Delete voters continuing to tag those articles as unencyclopedic. Thankfully though, in most cases, those people seem to handle not getting their way in a more dignified manner. You're coming dangerously close to a 3RR violation, just in case you were unaware. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:31, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I second Equazcion comment, if Bsharvy does not wish to follow the consensus of all the editors we should bring this issue to ANI. Igor Berger (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• There is no consensus that the article is encyclopedic. There was not even a consensus that the article should be preserved. A majority is not consensus. Voting to "Keep" is not the same as voting that the article in its present state is encyclopedic. Warning tags are not supposed to reflect consensus: they alert readers about what is in dispute. Whether this article, in its current state, is encyclopedic is in dispute. Whether the topic, in general, is encyclopedic is also in dispute.
• You don't seem to understand the difference between 1) majority and consensus, 2) voting to delete and thinking the current article is unencyclopedic but fixable, and 3) the article in its current state and the topic in general.
• You also don't seem to understand the very recent history of this discussion. Less than a week ago, there were 3 editors defending the warning tags, and 1-2 deleting them; now there are 2-3 editors deleting them and 1 defending them; in a month there may be more defending than deleting, and a month after that vice-versa. Your idea that the majority of the last 2 days gets what it wants is disruptive.
• The tags should express the legitimate conerns that have been expressed, including the concerns of minorities. The way to get rid of those tags is to address those concerns, not start edit wars over warning tags.
• By all means, bring the issue to ANI. Maybe you'll get a Misplaced Pages 101 lesson in the difference between consensus and majority. --Bsharvy (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

1) One vocal editor in disagreement does not a dispute make. 2) The wording of the tag is not one of maintenance needed but one of deletion needed. Since consensus was that the article should not be deleted, a tag saying it should doesn't belong. Equazcion •✗/C • 06:25, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppets?

Are Bsharvy and Rachel63 sockpuppets. I have looked at their contributions log and they both contribute to Anti-Americanism and Korean culture articles with specificity to the consumption of dog meat. The probability of two otherwise unrelated editors having a synchronicity of obscure interests seems to me improbable. Whilst this doesn't necessarily prove bad faith by these 2 editors (or is that 1), it does raise concerns about how these abuses can be detected and the issues can be investigated if necessary.

--Theo Pardilla 08:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on the pattern of reverts, I created Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Bsharvy. More evidence re: dog meat etc would be welcome there. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:01, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

• You want to file a 3rr violation on Rachel163 here or add to the sock case? Igor Berger (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• 3RR does nothing for the sock case. I'm curious to see if we'd see any edits by Bsharvy while Rachel63's IP is blocked, but I won't file a 3RR just for that. Let's see how the sockpuppet case pans out. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:25, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • She just filed an ANI case against you Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Equazcion:_Harrassment_and_Edit_Warring Which is total disruption and deserves an indef block. Igor Berger (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert to pre edit war version: 194848300 By Colin4C 29 Feb

I have restored the page to the last February edit because of the rampage by disruptive and destructive editors in a mini 'edit war.' This restores deleted text before most of the 'edit war' changes were made. I apologise to good faith interim editors as this reversion is necessary due to the extensive changes made that cannot be undone otherwise without complicated disentanglement and lots of work. This does not indicate that this version is optimal or preferred but simply that it reverts to before the corruptions of the 'edit war'.

--Theo Pardilla 09:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was nothing but disruptive and I've reverted it as such. Don't revert to a week-old revision without very good reasons, i.e. heavy vandalism etc. The only things there's been an edit war about were the same old tags above the lead. Everything else was fine and generally accepted with discussion on the talk page. --SABER 09:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Saber, we all trying to revert Bsharvy and Rachel edits, do not feel bad about your edits being reverted. Right now the article is protected in the wrong version of BsHarvy. Your work to the article is good, and we will try to fix it all once the POV stops. Igor Berger (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Europe section that was removed needs to be put back. It was quite well-sourced. The reason for removal didn't make much sense to me. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:47, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

The Europe section hasn't even been removed, only the parts which predominantly insinuate that the declining approval of U.S. actions in Europe equals anti-Americanism. If you disagree with this, we're back at how to actually define the term. --SABER 11:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a section on Middle-East that is missing, that Bsharvy manged to delete here You better recheck the article, because I remember she deleted another chuck, just do not recall what. Everytime she put the unencyclopidic tag, she deleted some section in the act. So please recheck the article. Igor Berger (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The term is subjective, as I've stated. You think people who disapprove of US foreign actions dont consider themselves anti-american? You think there isn't at least a significant portion of those who do? Again, subjective -- the article should include any significant usage. Just because you don't like that definition doesn't mean it isn't used that way. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:00, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I highly disapprove of U.S. foreign policy but that does not make me anti-American. I highly disapprove of Israeli foreign policy but that does not make me anti-Semitic. I highly disapprove of Russian foreign policy (and so on). I believe your version of the definition is wrong, it hasn't anything to do with whether I "like" it or not. --SABER 12:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay Saber, let's not go on tanget here but go back to edit thee article. You where doing a good job in keeping it NPOV, and I hope you can continue building it. Unfortunetly it was reverted to the AfD keep and pre Bsharvy edit warring. How can we rebuild the information that was deleted from the article because some of it was really good. I actually like Theo version here What do you think, can you extract the information or revert to that version. Igor Berger (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No we can not. The only one who was doing any major editing in the actual article was me. That edit reverted everything. There's no information to be extracted, there's no reason to revert to that version, it only adds a pile of crappy unsourced WP:OR. --SABER 12:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So revert it to the version that you think is best, and we will address others conserns from that point. Igor Berger (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No one needs to revert anything when there's no real reason to, if you want to salvage anything of what I removed you're free to do so through the article history, but keep it sourced. --SABER 12:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Saber, I wasn't describing "my" definition, I was describing a possible definition. Anti-Americanism can mean a disapproval of culture or policy -- what grounds are there to exclude one or the other? Equazcion •✗/C • 12:33, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

There's the disagreement, I do not believe that disapproval of policy equals anti-anything. I don't know what dictionary is most trustworthy, but that's what you'd need to convince me otherwise. --SABER 12:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that Anti-American means against things that are American -- which includes policies ("American policies"). If not, then can you describe to me what your interpretation of anti-(something) is? What does it mean (to you) when someone says they're anti-Russian or anti-Asian? Equazcion •✗/C • 12:56, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

The first issue is . "America" is everything of the Americas, not just the U.S. U.S. and Canadian policies differ, both are part of the Americas. The second issue and my answer to your question is that anti-(something) equals opposition and hostility to a nation or area's culture or people. Policies are politics and on a entirely different level. Anti-Americanism is more comparable to racism than it is to e.g. leftism. But again, this is my own version of the definition, which I can't guarantee to be correct. --SABER 13:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If that's just your own definition, and the term is subjective, why not include all uses? Besides which, from a technical standpoint, anti-American should be "against things that are American". That really includes everything, policies and all. As for "the Americas", yes those lands are called "the Americas" but they are not called "American", and neither are their countries. Canada is never called American. Brazil isn't called American. American refers to the United States. Just like American politics -- you're excluding that for some arbitrary reason that is not valid for our purposes. You feel that it's on a "different level" than everything else -- but that's just your feeling, which is neither here nor there. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:13, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

We should not be infusing racism commentary into the article. Although some reference should be made to it, I think we should deal more with policies that make over nations develop the anti-American sentiments, which may not necessary be atributed to racism. Igor Berger (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There we disagree too. The U.S., Canada, Mexico, Chilé, Brazil etc are all American nations on the American continents. They're called North and South America for good reasons. Whether people generally think that "American" = U.S. or not is irrelevant, we're going for the correct form. And in all honesty, your definition is really just your own version of it as well. --SABER 13:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Princeton.edu WordNet - "anti-American: opposed to the United States and its policies". I hope that can be the end of this dispute. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:35, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Obviously. --SABER 13:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re Princeton reference: Language is a living entity and is not defined from on high by an authority but rather its a description of its usage in its various forms across a population.

If a majority of US citizens oppose US government policy does it therefore follow that these people are Anti-American? If these same policies are opposed by foreigners does that make them Anti-American? If the US government opposes the will of the majority of US citizens does it therefore follow that the US government is Anti-American? Or are the majority of US citizens whose will it opposes Anti-American? When foreigners support the will of the majority of US citizens and oppose US government policy does it therefore follow that these foreigners are Anti-American? Or are foreigners Anti-American when they oppose the will of the majority of US citizens and support U.S. government policy?--Theo Pardilla 06:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The lead sentence of this article defines anti-americanism, for purposes of this article, as "opposition or hostility to the people, culture or policies of the United States." Given that, I think the answer to all of your questions is "yes". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It is anti-American policy, not prejudice or hostility towards American people. Igor Berger (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your definition apparently differs from the article's lead sentence definition. The lead sentence definition is "opposition or hostility to the people, culture or policies of the United States." (emphasis supplied) should the article content follow the article's definition or should it follow your definition? Should the article's definition be changed to conform to your definition? Does it make any sense at all to have an article about a subject when there is disagreement among editors about what the subject is? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not about any individuals definition but rather whether the definition reflects the various usages and whether it clarifies implicit assumptions and inferences drawn by a varied readership who bring their own perceptions to a reading of the article about a term laden with multiple meanings.--Theo Pardilla 06:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe its time to update the definition. If the U.S. government criticizes the people, culture or even its own policies or those of a previous administration does that make it Anti-American? Is it possible for anyone foreign or indigenous to criticize anything about America and not be Anti-American? If a Democrat or Republican criticizes their own sides policies are they Anti-American? And what if they criticize the other sides policies? Would this vary if the criticism was from a foreigner and why? It seems to be implied in the article and introduction that Anti-Americanism is practiced by foreigners. It needs to be stated explicitly, for clarity, whether it applies only to foreign criticism or also to criticism by American citizens. Its application to power centers and government policy is doctrinal rather than literal and simply vulgar propaganda whilst its application as a universal term is literal rather than doctrinal but also ludicrous, therefore the definition needs to be clarified across these two facets.--Theo Pardilla 06:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

break #1

American people critiszing American policy or another group of American people for their political ideology, is anti-Americanism. We are not talking about one people not liking another people, we are talking about ideology! Igor Berger (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Anti-Americanism is an ideology same like Liberalism Igor Berger (talk) 06:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are unclear, at least to me, whether you believe criticizing a specific aspect of America means that the critic is practicing an ideological position or alternatively whether the person claiming that the critic is Anti-American is practicing an ideological position for claiming that the critic is Anti-American. It seems to me that criticism may be valid, invalid, true, false, moral, immoral, democratic, undemocratic, well intended, malevolent or have any other number of motives or characteristics but i just do not understand how any and all criticism must therefore be explained as ideological. You have to accept deeply ideological or even totalitarian assumptions not to laugh at this. If you criticize, say, American socialists it doesn't mean that you are anti American it means only that that you are criticizing American socialists. If you support the current federal government administrations policies it doesn't mean that you are pro American and equally if a socialist administration were elected whose policies you opposed it would not mean that you were Anti-American but simply that you support or oppose those policies.If one criticizes socialists with the same policies from a different country, say, Norwegian, Venezuelan or South African it doesn't mean that one is Anti that nation or even that ones criticism is ideological, it may be ideological, but you would have to know what the criticism was specifically and what the motivations of the critic were or alternatively whether it was part of a doctrinal or ideological belief system. If one is opposed to, for arguments sake and i will make up a policy here, say, Igorbergers 'leaving the toilet seat up' policy it doesnt mean that one is Anti-Igorberger but just that one is opposed to that particular policy. .--Theo Pardilla 07:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you! I am talking about when the criticism becomes a political movement and it is viewed as such by the whole world and is labeled as an Anti-Americanism ideology. Not because liberals do not agree with neoconservatists how American foreign policy should be, that is not anti-Americanism. I think we are being stuck on semantics.Igor Berger (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the American extreme ideology of 1920's and 30' support for fascism may be viewed as anti-Americanism. What do you think, or are we going on a fork here? Igor Berger (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec*2)I've been listening today to Bill O'Reilly rant about "Obama's anti-american Minister" and watching him play clips of said minister ranting "Not God Bless America — God Damn America!!!" etc. Googling around, I see this O'Reilly Talking Points article titled "Legitimate Dissent vs. Anti-American Dishonesty", and this list of google hits on "anti-american" on billoreilley.com. Don't have the time to do anything with this right now, but thought I'd mention it. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can take any ideology term and turn it into a propaganda term. You can say Zionist...blah, blah...Liberals...Fascists...blah, blah...etc. Igor Berger (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Also be very careful what you find in Google. Google indexing is not NPOV, and anyone can manipulate Google index to promote a political agenda, or any other agenda. Just because we see something more prominent and more vast in Google does not make it more reliable and more Truth. We have to apply Misplaced Pages NPOV to it. Igor Berger (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Google results will sorted according to ones previous page viewing history and will tend over time to present pages with viewpoints that one agrees with, because of the history of pages that are viewed and search terms used, as compared to searches from a generic or clean environment (web browser cookies).

Quite apart from that, a universal psychological mechanism called the confirmation bias means that people seek out or absorb ideas that are aligned with what they already believe. To counter this universal bias requires active searching for and integration of beliefs that you disagree with. And therefore presenting evidence that supports your beliefs but not presenting evidence that opposes them is not proof of your beliefs but is in fact confirmation of your bias.

Its a partisan term in addition to being propaganda like many terms of public discourse.--Theo Pardilla 08:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

Since multiple editors are edit warring, I have protected the page. Please consider resolving disputes by seeking consensus here instead. --slakr 09:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Jesus... Equazcion •✗/C • 09:40, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

No, Anti-Americanism. Though, Jesus does gets its own share of edit wars. :P --slakr 09:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

We all trying to get consensus, but User:Bsharvy and possible sock User:Rachel63 is trying to push his POV against all editors' consensus. Igor Berger (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know we were protecting pages due to these little spats. Frequent ongoing long-term-type edit warring I can see, but this... again... it's just not encouraging. Equazcion •✗/C • 09:46, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not the reinsertion of the unencyclopidic tag, but slow deletion of the whole article by Bsharvy. Igor Berger (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

here Igor Berger (talk)

Well, keep me updated on the sock/checkuser/whatever. It was either this or start blocking people, sock or not, for 3RR. I figure this is a much better alternative. --slakr 10:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, no problem, we need to straighten this out, so the editors can work on the article. Igor Berger (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the problem here seems to be just two editors who both violated 3RR, I don't see how that warranted full protection of the article. People who violate 3RR should be blocked for 3RR violation. The article on which they made the violation shouldn't be protected due to that. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:23, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I agree let the other editors keep working on the article. Igor Berger (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, after taking a look at their contributions, it looks like they're probably socks. Check out Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets/Bsharvy. I'll unprotect the article, assuming that nobody else is going to edit war. --slakr 11:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Slakr. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:31, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

And PS, good work Theo on spotting this. I'm a suspicious guy but apparently not suspicious enough to have checked for other editing similarities between these two users. Good job. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:35, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

No prob. Just be sure to tell your friends about SlakrSleuth™ patented technology— now with Sock-B-Gone™ formula :P Cheers =) --slakr 11:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Will do :) Equazcion •✗/C • 11:52, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to add my thanks. Thank you. IronCrow (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism as a racist term

If agreed we can add a subsection to the use of the term section Anti-Americanism#Use_of_the_term. We can have a small subsection with examples how the term is used as a racism term. Of course we will need to reference it. Igor Berger (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can find references then go ahead, but I doubt its use in that way, and I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about. But don't try to explain it to me, just let us know if you have a reference, because otherwise this is moot. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:33, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I actually doubt its usage in this way as well, but being that Saber brought it up I thought we may have this section if references can be established for its usage in such respect. Maybe anti-American racial sentiment? Igor Berger (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Saber was just drawing a parallel to illustrate an example of his definition. He wasn't saying anti-Americanism is ever actually racist, just that it's similar in some ways. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:03, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I agree, while it maybe similar it is not the same. And it is easy, for a casual observer to make a presumption that it is. So no need for this section. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

I have cut the following as trivial:

"Miscomprehension of the naming conventions in the UK has added to this problem, with England, Britain and the UK often being interchangeable, and even occasionally the assumption that a Home Nation is part of England. It is also not unusual to see references to 'Prime Minister Brown' or 'Prime Minister Blair' , something which has since seeped into the UK media, despite the correct address being "the Rt. Hon. xxxx, the Prime Minister".

People in Britain also do not like the way that Americanisations are creeping into the English language, with key examples being train station (instead of railway station) and spellings like sulfur instead of sulphur creeping into children's education. For full details, see American and British English spelling differences."

An extended discursion on spelling differences does not seem germane to the topic. Marskell (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Wreaks of OR anyway. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:34, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Just what I like to see. Americans making decisions on what's trivial when it comes to anti-American. --WebHamster 14:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an American. Insinuations of the above sort have no place here.

It's shorter, but it's still trivial. If the spelling of sulfur is truly a cause of prejudice in Britain, I'd be surprised. Marskell (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you. And the sulfur reference is merely an example as is the railway station. If there's any doubt as to the resentment I suggest you look at how may edit wars have come about due to the use of US English vs British English. You may not be American but I'll bet you aren't British either if you aren't aware of the level of resentment. Incidentally Equazcion, there's no requirement to discuss each and every single edit so don't be so bloody quick to revert next time. I was rushing as I'm due to go out I had every intention of sourcing it, but due to you stiucking your nose in I'm now late and for no good reason. well done. --WebHamster 14:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that you used the plural and only two of us were talking, I have no idea who else you might have been referring to. Marskell (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bold, revert, talk. No, not every edit needs to be discussed, but once a revert took place and you were told there was a discussion was going on pertaining to that edit, you should participate in it rather than just continuing to edit. I reverted you because I don't feel what you're putting into the article should be there. Think you'd do the same. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:06, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

And PS -- I didn't mean to make you late. That was just a bonus. Equazcion •✗/C • 15:09, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde said about America words to the effect of "Everything is the same as in England apart from the language". By the way I still disagree with Saber getting rid of all the quotes in this article (plus lots of other relevent material) - contrary to wikipedia policy. Saber, possibly prompted by the sock-puppeteer Bsharvy's spurious complaints, totally misrepresented the very good quality of this article and got rid of lots of valuable material. Colin4C (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Randomly throwing a quote without any context whatsoever right under a h2 header is not good encyclopedic style. Building sections that consist of more quoted material than own text is not good encyclopedic style. I'm not arguing against the material but the way in which you present it. Per WP:MOS the article was in a crappy state. --SABER 17:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't here for that stuff. Maybe someone could paste the section you're talking about in here so others can offer input? Equazcion •✗/C • 20:23, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)

--SABER 08:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the quote has merit, but we do not need to put the quote on the article page, but we can summarize what the quote says and wikilink to the quoted article. Igor Berger (talk) 09:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories

I removed some that already have subcategories. --72.221.68.85 (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism sentiment examples Due Weight

While there are many examples of anti-American sentiment, we do not need to include all of them and should only include notable one's per WP:V. We should apply WP:WEIGHT when we include examples. So if a sentiment is prominent like objection to American foreign policy it should get more coverage. Also objection by Europeans of prolifiration of fast food chains like McDonalds and Starbucks should be included but with less weight than foreign policy. But something like too many American turists at Eiffel Tower or Giza, may not need to be included. Or a smoking ban on all international cariers, which was championed by American legislation, while maybe objetioanable by international passangers is not going to make the article more important if included. Igor Berger (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Revenge of Bsharvy

Bsharvy has stated on his talk page User talk:Bsharvy that he is going to create a new ID plus sockpuppet!: "I will just create another account. Maybe I will make a sockpuppet too: what is there to lose?" Watch out for this! Colin4C (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is this bsharvy? He sounds like a very intelligent man. --Bshanvy (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

He is the same person as you. Don't you recognise yourself? Colin4C (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I found it in good humour =D Iciac (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm the same person as myself? I disagree. I strongly believe that I'm not me. You're just making more unsourced POV claims as usual. --Bshanvy (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Must be Bsharvy. Got the same uncanny sense of humor. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:32, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)

DUCK thinks he is a BEAR. Igor Berger (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Editing User:Squatt is also a sockpuppet of Bsharvy. Squatt is a newly created user and has beamed straight to this article, at the same time as 'Bshanvy', deleting stuff and adding a tag and seeming to be quite knowledgeable about wikipedia editing - despite first registering about a day ago. As Bsarvy threatened to come back as a new user plus sockpuppet I think we should investigate this possibility. Colin4C (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Already under way: Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Bshanvy. Feel free to add evidence and comments. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:07, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'll be more than happy to contact the school at which Bsharvy teaches to help rectify the situation. I'm sure that they won't be too pleased when they hear that one of their faculty is representing their institution in such a way as to cause trouble on wikipedia. --slakr 13:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to check the history of User talk:Rachel63. I tactfully edited Bshanvy's comments to me, in order to remove some colorful personal attacks. I'm sure the school would be interested to hear that he said things like "What are you, a nerd?" and "Damn you're dumb" . What a wonderful example s/he is to his/her students. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:11, 18 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Also, one of my colleagues suggested that I clarify what I originally said, as I totally should have added wikilinks, and I could easily see how it could have been misconstrued as a threat or something totally not like me. :P In cases of repeat abuse over a certain connection, we will initiate long term abuse reports if someone is abusing their uplink in order to prevent having to rangeblock the entire school which would prevent even the students of the school from being able to edit. --slakr 17:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Due weight

While not participating in the previous reverts, I'd just like to make clear I'm reverting the extended Chomsky quotes because of WP:UNDUE. The first paragraphs are cautious and attempt to be balanced, and then suddenly we have two massive Chomsky quotes, which means, basically, that the article comes down in one camp after trying to avoid doing so.

Please note I am not an American Fundamentalist... This is basic attention to due weight. I would not be averse, for instance, to moving a single Chomsky quote into the lead, to balance out the Hollander quote already there. Marskell (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

State terrorism and the United States

I would like to include State terrorism and the United States in the see also section. This is what domestic anti-Americanism is. Igor Berger (talk) 10:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Timothy McVeigh Oklahoma City bombing, Jim Crow laws as well as any United States terrorism against its own people is anti-Americanism. Igor Berger (talk) 10:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

But your examples aren't state terrorism. --SABER 11:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually you are right. It is about United States supporting terrorism against other countries. Yes you are right it does not belong in the article. Thank you for pointing it out to me. Igor Berger (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can add this? Plot against FDR Igor Berger (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

1. AIS Media Crop Circle spotted in Wales, England countryside, February 15, 2007, retrieved 2008-01-11 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
2. President Bush, Prime Minister Blair Hold Press Availability, March 27, 2003, retrieved 2008-01-11 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)
3. Forms of address, January 11, 2008, retrieved 2008-01-11 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)

• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Unassessed International relations articles
• Unknown-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• Unassessed Discrimination articles
• Unknown-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles