Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 14

Complaints about Germany's view on Scientology
I would suspect that some of those who complain about the US getting involved in Germany's internal affairs by complaining about Germany's treatment of Scientology also complain about the US having a death penatly, clearly an internal affair.

The logical extension of that opinion says that neither the US nor the EU had the right to condemn the Sudan for their on-going genocide, which is itself an internal affair. --Prosfilaes 21:03, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Why someone who is clearly not a troll would argue like this on a page that is highly controversial to begin with is beyond me. a) One wrong does not justify another. b) Actions by the US government are not equivalent to similar actions by individuals or NGOs in other countries. c) Contrary to popular opinion, not every extrapolation is a logical extension: You are absolutely correct that international interventionism and internal affairs are very problematic areas, but to dispute any meaningful difference between the treatment of Scientology in Germany, the death penalty in the US, and a genocide in Sudan is cynical. I don't get it: What is so cool about discrediting a valid idea by presenting laughable arguments for it? Rl 12:50, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It's highly controversial because it's a series of potshots at America, with no responses, and little overarching discussion. Perhaps a little discussion about how the US is not unique for many of these things would help add perspective--NPOV--to this article.


 * And you're right; the US death penalty and the German treatment of Scientologists has little in common. The death penalty only affects a few hundred murderers; the German treatment of Scientologists affects thousands of innocent people. In any case, it's a quanitive difference, not a qualitive difference; a wrong is a wrong. If we can't agree on what is wrong, then at least we can discuss it.


 * Every country has a right, possibly even a moral obligation, to complain when other countries commit what they consider moral wrongs. --Prosfilaes 17:18, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * All the enumerated issues are related to Human Rights. Since there are international conventions on them, they are no longer solely internal affairs. While the death penalty "affects a few hundred murderers" - by ending their most basic human right, the right to live - the "German treatment of Scientologists affects thousands of innocent people" - by protecting them from what is seen as a potentially harmful organization that brainwashes people in order to exploit them financially. No scientologist was ever seriously harmed in Germany because of his "religion". The only existing restrictions compared to other organizations are that scientology is watched by the German intelligence - something the constitution only allows in cases of 	probable cause - and that scientology is denied tax benefits as charitable organizations get them. Just go to your local scientology church, ask them for a list of prices for their "auditing courses" and for some photos of their yachts and stately homes and you will understand what kind of "charity" they stand for. Get-back-world-respect 22:56, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * So if there weren't international conventions, genocide would be an internal affairs? Freedom of religion is a human right recognized by international conventions, and restrictions on that right are frequently phrased in the terms of protecting them from a potentially harmful organization. Is a pocketbook really more important than an immortal soul?


 * The nature of Scientology is really outside the grounds of debate. It is important when answering whether the US is correct in its objection, not whether it can make a objection. Since the US honestly considers scientology a religion, they can raise the topic as a violation of the fundamental human right of freedom of religion.--Prosfilaes 04:34, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Everyone is free to join Scientology in Germay, Freedom of religion is not restricted here. Freedom of tax evasion is. And freedom of criminality is restricted by the German intelligence.
 * If there were no international conventions, it would be illegal to intervene in cases of genocide. That is why international conventions are very important. Do not try to twist it the other way round. Get-back-world-respect 07:49, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Laws come from higher powers; kings, popes, the people (in the case of a democracy.) In absence of international convention, there would be no power higher than that of the nation, and hence nothing would be illegal between states.--Prosfilaes 23:12, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Well said, that is why we need them. Get-back-world-respect 13:00, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Scientology is not regarded as a religion in Germany but as a sectarian, profit-making business. - Heimdal 14:02, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

An Image
Moved meandering off-topic talk to Talk:Anti-American sentiment/Image.

Another image
Perhaps this picture would be better? (and certainly more humourous - a bit of light relief is certainly needed around here...) -- ChrisO 21:11, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Without context the image is meaningless. Where was it taken? Before a reading of Michael Moore, a presentation of "50 first dates" or when Bush visited Italy? Get-back-world-respect 22:05, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * London, near the Globe Theatre, about a week ago. I have no idea what the placard-waver was trying to say... -- ChrisO 22:50, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Hey, at least he used the apostrophe correctly :-) --Phil | Talk 09:00, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * I really cannot understand how you could include a photo of a guy about which you say yourself "I have no idea what the placard-waver was trying to say...". Get-back-world-respect 10:42, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it was sarcasm or irony. JoeBaldwin 11:01, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Archives of this talk
I archived out this extremely long (almost 300KB) talk to multiple archives. If you wish to respond to earlier comments, please move those comments only back here for further discussion. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:56, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A taste of waste

 * "Some anti-American sentiments started to appear as America entered the competition for influence in the Pacific, and anti-Americanism was widespread in the Central Powers after the US entered the First World War. These sentiments became even more widespread during the interbellum and depression."

God what a load of complete and total garbage. Neutrally speaking of course. -Stevertigo 02:34, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A message from the Delete This Article Movement
"That's a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture. In contrast, people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt. Suppose someone in Italy who criticizes Italian state policy were condemned as "anti-Italian." It would be regarded as too ridiculous even to merit laughter. Maybe under Mussolini, but surely not otherwise." --Noam Chomsky


 * Just goes to show what sort of kooks are opposed to this article. LOL. But the biggest argument against the delete/censorship crowd is that you are here! Yo uare interested in this article. You are reading and debating it. Obviously, anti-Americanism is real and relevant.


 * So if we debated the existence of Santa Claus on Talk:Santa Claus, that would make him "real and relavent"? Of course, the fact that we do have an article on Santa Claus shows that we should also have an article on anti-American sentiment, since real or not, it's an important political/cultural issue. Cadr 09:36, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Template:Persecution
I find it rather dubious to make this article part of a persecution category. Even if this article covered killings of Americans because of their nationality like the recent particularly disgusting ones I would still consider it questionable to label violence against nationals of an occupying country as "persecution", especially when the occupying forces bomb weddings. Mixing persecution, discrimination and prejudice into one category in my eyes is no good idea. The holocaust and prejudices against people with piercings are just too different. 16:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I disgree totally. Civilians and journalists are "occupying" nowhere. And the US was not "occupying" Manhatten on September 11th. These people were killed simply because of the their place of birth, which according to the Wikipedia page on "Genocide" fits in the UN definition: race, religion, nationality.... Just because some people **preceive** the US as powerful, it doesn't negate American's human rights, not is the fact that this tactic has been used in the past to justify genocide provide any comfort (eg. the propaganda effort in Nazi Germany to equate a powerless minority group as "puppet masters" who controlled global conspiracies). The tactic is obvious: Claim some group is menacingly powerful, and then violate their rights. I think persecution fits anti-Americanism like a glove. The fact that you do not simply seems to be because you support it. Maybe an inability to look at your own bigotry squarely?


 * Get real. The US and a handful collaborators are brutally and illegally occupying Iraq, and the Iraqi resistance are killing anyone they can get their hands on because that's a way to get them out. That's what any sensible insurgency would do in these circumstances. Just fyi., they have killed an Italian, a Bulgarian, a Lebanese, a Korean, and one (1) American ; they have also kidnapped Canadians, Jordanians, Kuweitis, Turks, Filipinos, Egyptians and one or two Americans. How does that square with your ridiculous anti-American persecution? It's just non-sense.pir 14:18, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You get real -- executing civilians is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and countless other international legal documents. Just because you find crimes against humanity "sensible" doesn't mean rational people do. As for not making sense, your blaming of anti-American massacres on Iraq is ludicrous, even for a loon like you, since such attacks began long before the war in Iraq, and the war in Iraq is a response to Arab anti-American terrorist massacres. Talk about blaming the victim.... Anyway, we eagerly await your video execution of some helpless civilian since you find war crimes so "sensible" (your word)


 * I didn't say that killing civilians (or crimes against humanity) is sensible. I said that for a militant resistance movement this is a sensible strategy. Killing individual people constitutes a crime, not a crime against humanity. Dropping 500 pound bombs on civilian areas more likely constitutes a crime against humanity. Incarceration of POWs without due legal process by a foreign state constitutes a violation of the Geneva convention. And just fyi., according to UN conventions, every nation has got a right to fight against foreign occupation, although I doubt that killing civilians falls under that. I won't answer the more nutty remarks. This has got nothing to do with anti-Americanism. Please sign your messages( ~ ).Thanks.pir 16:19, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * No one should try to justify any crimes here. What I opposed was a template that mixed together prejudice, discrimination, and persecution together, and the reasons presented by its creator were more than dubious. I consider it ridiculous to attack others as "anti-American". Even if I feel contempt for the current government that in my eyes should be sent to the Hague as soon as possible it does not mean at all that I have any negative feelings against the United States as a country or its citizens in general. It does not make me anti-German either that I feel contempt for some governments my country had. Get-back-world-respect 22:02, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Just in case your "No one should try to justify any crimes here" comment is aimed at me, let me re-state very clearly that I did not justify anything here, I just said that the Iraqi resistance's strategy is a sensible one, i.e. it makes sense, because it is likely to further their aim of liberating Iraq from a foreign occupier. No moral concepts come into that. For the rest I agree with everything you say above GBWR. To classify so-called "anti-Americanism" as persecution along with anti-Semitism and the Inquisition is to make a most bizarre mockery of the millions of victims of the holocaust and other genocides. Or should we add scientists as a persecuted group as well because Ted Kaczynski sent a few dozen letterbombs?pir 23:39, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. Let's wait for some days, and unless compelling counterarguments show up, let's remove it again! /Tuomas 17:56, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Why? We shouldn't delete it until there is a consensus. At present, there is just some vocal opposition who claim that "anti-Americanism" doesn't exist. When pressed for debate, they refuse to even discuss. Persecution is highly applicable, and I am willing to be that the people opposed to the persecution template are mostly non-Americans full of prejudice. That is, this discussion is like asking the KKK if anti-Semitism exists or not. Highly prejudicial and clearly npov.


 * Actually, I think the persecution template doesn't work well at all with any page I've seen it on. VV 19:06, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cross-posted on Template talk:Persecution Well anti-Semitism for example seems to be quite fitting under "persecution." What else is it? Putting anti-Americanism in the same context as anti-Semitism and anti-Arabism seems to highlight the very silliness of having a belief in an "anti-Americanism," or even certain overhyped aspects of anti-Semitism, for that matter. In this context, the more trivial aspects of each might be seen more clearly as belonging within more trivial contexts. All that said, that is not the problem of the template, which only ties one form of persecution to another. Itself it does nothing to alter the material itself. How else would these things be defined? Discrimination and Racism dont seem to fit either. Ethnism against Americans doesnt work too, because much of what is called Anti-American sentiment is actually just "disagreeing with the United States." Sorry to put it so plainly, but thats how stupid the assertion is that a disdain for American Imperialism is some form of anti-Americanism. I'm sure noone here would say that anti-American sentiment holds such a special place in world opinion such that it deserves its own category. This would be rather self-interested, dont you think? So where does it go? I wish this article itself could be pruned as easily as removing a template, but for various reasons it is not. -Stevertigo 10:35, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I find your approach of ridiculizing the term anti-Americanism by uniting it in a template with the holocaust rather questionable and certainly not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Please choose a more constructive approach. Since two others agreed I would opt for a deletion. Get-back-world-respect 10:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not "ridiculizing" the term. And I did not mention the holocaust - You completely mis-state and misrepresent what I did and what I said. I simply classified anti-Americanism under its most appropriate general heading. Only when placed next to more genuine forms of persecution does it appear rather ridiculous. In which case, It may be that anti-Americanism belongs under a less serious subcategory of persecution, or in a different category altogether "ridiculous persecution."


 * What interests me is the delay in the notice of the contrast. About three to four days, perhaps. I imagine that some who disagree with the classification do so not because it becomes ridiculous by contrast, but because it highlights the wimpier aspects of "persecution," and the remarkable paradox that the world's most powerful nation, (some say with an ego to match) has people within it who like to complain of a persecutory "sentiment" towards them. Maybe template:phobia would be a better place to put it. Again, not to be anti-"constructive" - just advocating the proper classification of the term, that's all. Template:propagandism maybe. -Stevertigo 16:56, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * You did not mention the holocaust here, but the holocaust would fall under persecution while as you rightly say alleged "anti-Americanism" does not. I sympathize with your mockery, I just think it is not encyclopedia style. Get-back-world-respect 17:28, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Youre a bit confused. Encyclopedic style refers to the way in which articles report their facts. Categorization is usually not a component of an A-Z encyclopdia, and thats the only thing were talking about. If you refer to my style of raising incontrovertible and altruistic points as being unencyclopedic, then 1. I wonder who you actually agree with, and 2. What, after all your sympathetic "mockery," is your answer to how to classify the article? You might read up on some of the important wikiphilosophy topics like academic standards disease, and wikifaith to further clarify this distinction between personal, wiki, academic, and encyclopedic "style." With a great regard for your needlessly long and polemic username, Stevertigo 17:38, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Since this is an encyclopedia, everything should be in a style appropriate for an encyclopedia. If we use things like categorizing templates we should not do so for mockery or in order to ridiculize. As you can read yourself, VeryVerily and Tuomas agreed that the template is not helpful, you are alone. Since your only means of defending is does not convince I put it up for deletion. Regarding your off-topic remark note the Wikipedia policy: No personal attacks. Get-back-world-respect 22:00, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, get real. It was not a "personal" remark. If I had said "you seem to be quite a bit more intelligent than your education and articulation will allow," you might take that personally. But take a little more time to consider your responses anyway, please. You still have not responded to how you would classify this article. Are you incapable of classifying things logically and orderedly?-Stevertigo 22:17, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Concerning Are you incapable of classifying things logically and orderedly?: Wikipedia policy is No personal attacks. And while striking out them may be questionable, deleting others' comments and even deletion requests is intolerable.
 * I do not think any categorization is needed, and the one you suggested is damaging. Get-back-world-respect 22:36, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Allegations of Anti-Americanism in propaganda
That paragraph in my eyes is longer than needed, already partly dealt with in the introduction, and the quotes should be reduced to their essence. Get-back-world-respect 11:06, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Possibly. However, I've been told that issues that aren't covered in the rest of the article don't fit into the introduction. Now, don't ask me for verse and chapter in the Wikipedia policies. I'm no expert of them. Not by far. I only reacted aganst a prompt removal of what I considered a good and relevant section of the article:


 * The phrase "anti-American" is often used as a loaded term applied to any critiques; as a subtle way of silencing dissent. The vagueness of the term allows it to be an effective weapon of propaganda.


 * Many people view certain elements of their country (e.g, culture) as an entirely seperate entity from the power structures that rule it (in this context, phrases like "love it or leave it" have little relevancy). It is this sentiment that lead Thomas Paine to say, "It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." Noam Chomsky, a famous critic of American foreign policy, writes:


 * The concept "anti-American" is an interesting one. The counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military dictatorships... Thus, in the old Soviet Union, dissidents were condemned as "anti-Soviet." That's a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture. In contrast, people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt. Suppose someone in Italy who criticizes Italian state policy were condemned as "anti-Italian." It would be regarded as too ridiculous even to merit laughter. Maybe under Mussolini, but surely not otherwise.

Maybe it's because I don't like the soundbite-style of modern TV-news editing, or maybe it's because something else, but I think quotations that are cut out of context say less, and seem less credible and confident, the more of the context is cut away. How would you like that section to be worded? /Tuomas 17:13, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I regarded the initial version of this section as almost beyond salvation, but this is a substantial improvement. It no longer makes vague swipes at FOX or overstates its case.  I NPOV'ed it a bit more, but it's not too unreasonable to have. VV 19:08, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree a little with Noam on that point, or rather I would have stated "...people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt" a bit differently:
 * That, 'wherin an national culture that long-predates it's current government, propagandisms that assert an association between a government, ideology, or agenda with the older national and cultural identity, will fail to resonante."
 * So, in Nazi Germany, the popular appeal wasn't a German state nationalism, as Italian facism was, but it was "German unity," of German speaking people accross national boundaries; the idea was to 'undo the damage done to German culture' done in previous (German-instigated, of course) wars. Neither Nazi Germany or Facist Italy could have overcome this normal cultural common sense without the use of extreme coersion; i.e. secret police, the targeting of "domestic enemies", etc. -Stevertigo 17:42, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I would delete what I striked out
 * Good, if you ask me! /Tuomas 23:37, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * ... and of the Chomsky quote I would only keep what is new to the article and write it in an encyclopedia style, e.g. Noam Chomsky, a famous critic of American foreign policy points out that terms like anti-Americanism are usually only used in totalitarian states or military dictatorships where people identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture.
 * Regarding Stevertigo's comment, Hitler wanted more "life space" for the "Arian race", and exterminate allegedly dangerous and inferior "races" such as the jewish. The previous wars in Germany where the First World War, which started when Austria asked Germany for help against Bosnian Serbian insurgents which had assassinated the heir to the Austrian throne and which made Russia stick with the Serbs, and since Russia was ally of France that country was in as well. The alliances had been formed way before and had been provoking each other for a while, also the rivalry about colonies played a role. The last war before was the Franco-Prussian one in 1870/71, and the tradition of wars with France was long and difficult to blame on a single one of both countries. So "German-instigated" is a questionable judgment. Get-back-world-respect 18:09, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe this is a bit incorrect. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was just an opportunistic event where German nationalists were concerned. It provided the excuse and the particular scapegoat target for starting hostilities that were at least ideologically designed to establish a unified German nation. It seems to be the single thread spanning all of these conflicts. The FP war was a cornerstone of this utopian Germanism, a large part of which was the glorification of Bismark's successful militaristic realpolitik of the FP war. -Stevertigo 10:13, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Franz Ferdinand neither was German nor did "the Germans" start the war against Serbia. In fact it were Serbian nationalists who started with the violence. Austria was longing for an extension of territory and an end to the Serbian aggressions and had an alliance with Germany, that is why Germany was in. Wilhelm just did not believe Russia would back Serbia because he had some important Russian cousin. There also was some communication problem due to problems with the telegraphs. If you read the WWI article you may agree with me that the longing for a war was not restricted to the Germans and there had been provocations from either side for quite a while. I have never heard of anyone before the Austrian Hitler dreaming of a unification of Austria and Germany. And I repeat that the Franco-German aggressions had a long tradition and cannot be blamed on a single one of the countries. I think your presentation is simplistic. Get-back-world-respect 10:49, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Again, mis-state my words do you? Fail to hear me you do. German Austrians are "Germans" accordcing to Germans living in Austria and in Germany. The response to Ferdinand's assasination by Austria was at the instigation of Germany, and the long-existing alliances you wrote of (coincidentally) happened to fall along ethnic "German" lines. This ethnic nationalism trancended national borders, and was the popular basis for going to war. Understand? -Stevertigo 18:23, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * You can believe Germans pressed Austria to fight Serbia, the editors of the World War I article see it differently. The alliances leading to the war were as much the ones you perceive as "German" as the ones between Russia/Serbia/France/UK. As I already pointed out provocations had come from both sides for quite a while. The longing for a war was not restricted to Germans. Your condescending style is not helpful. Get-back-world-respect 22:10, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll concede that my condecention is no more helpful than your excessive and enthusiastic flights into dissent and partiality. -Stevertigo 23:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Just for the record: I do not really feel a need to take a stance for or against Chomsky. The cultural/national difference from Finland to America is that big that I often feel American commentators to dissonate with my reality - more or less. So also with this quote. But he is sort of an icon, isn't he, and sort of authoritative for what people on that political wing might argue, isn't he? /Tuomas 18:03, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

definition
Veriverily, you twice rewrote the definition of the whole term without discussion and changed "intervention in Chile is documented (and the documents)" into a vague "it is widely believed". Please explain. Get-back-world-respect 23:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by rewriting the definition. The word hostility is added there; while I don't recall adding it, it is helpful to note that some instances of such sentiment are more than mere disapproval.  This is a pretty small change, anyway, no?  Meanwhile, the second paragraph of the opening was wordy and disconnected.  I sharpened it up and made it flow with little alteration in content (some trimming of issues I felt could wait till the next section).  The Chile paragraph was flat wrong; the documents do not show anything of the sort, and the subsequent assertion is questionable to say the least.  Instead, I linked to the Chilean coup of 1973 article, which covers this very complex question in full detail.  The widely believed/regarded/thought/reported formulation is, well, widely used on Wikipedia as a "weasel word" for NPOV (see Osama bin Laden); personally, I would prefer something even weaker, but I didn't want to be so bold just yet.  V V    23:51, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I am ok with either hostility or disapproval, just produced some editing accident. But would it not be hostility towards rather than for? It seems to me that it does not work well grammatically as it is now but English is not my mother tongue.
 * What I did not like about your version is the "pro-contra-pro-style":
 * Some believe it is a root cause of terrorism against Americans. On the other hand, critics often denounce its use as propaganda and an attempt to distract from and delegitimize criticism leveled towards the US. Others, however, believe it is a genuine force rooted in prejudice and resentment and related to racism and anti-Semitism.
 * As it was before the stress was that the word is used as an attempt to allude to anti-semitism and thereby racism in order to defame and downplay legitimate criticism. As you put it it may seem to some as if criticizing the US administration was racist. Get-back-world-respect 03:55, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying. I limited myself somewhat based on what was there before, and then felt there should be a rebuttal to the propaganda claim.  As a consequence, it has inherited some of the previous flow problems; the on the other hand should probably go.  But I don't understand at all why you're so wedded to the old language, which is not good at all.  "It is better said that...", come on, this is just opinion.  What does "referring to overtones" mean anyway?  And, no, I'm stating that a point of view is that anti-Americanism is similar to other forms of prejudice, and that is a point of view.  V V    06:10, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I am entirely ok if you find better language, I agree that the old one was not good. But what you did was to create the pro-contra-pro style again. The opinion that anti-Americanism was racism related to anti-Semitism, is an opinion I have never heard anyone honestly expressing. How many people do you think are out there who would like to engage in progromes against Americans? You may think of Al Quaida and its followers, but those are anti-western rather than anti-American. The opinion that the expression "anti-Americanism" was invented in order to defame and downplay legitimate criticism by alluding to racism and anti-Semitism is widely held, so you should not replace it by yours.
 * I really do not like your deletion of the declassified documents and I do not quite see why people are still debating the fact that the CIA was involved in the coup against Allende. Check another encyclopedias: In Sept., 1973, with covert American support, the armed forces staged a coup that resulted in Allende's death and in the execution, detention, or expulsion from Chile of thousands of people. Gen. Augusto Pinochet Ugarte took control of the country. Get-back-world-respect 10:23, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the new language as pro-contra-pro. Rather, there were two separate topics considered: effects and usage. But at any rate I think it's best when there are varying views of what belongs to make the intro as minimalist as possible. The theories about anger, in particular, seem way out of place in the opening. I don't want to get into debates as to whether anti-Americansm is an actual force (I think it pretty clearly is), but there is no doubt that some do see it as analogous to other forms of "prejudice". But I have removed the specific mention of racism/anti-Semitism since those seem to bother you. As for the Chile coup business, that is a huge controversy that has afflicted several articles. If you want a window into that mess, start with Talk:Augusto Pinochet. It is ugly. Let's stick to known, proven facts; rumors and suspicions, even if copied in reputable sources, don't count. At any rate, it is undeniable that those "declassified documents" say nothing about the 1973 coup but about unimplemented plans for a coup in 1970. V V   11:00, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Your repeated rewriting of crucial parts of the article against warning and without explanation at talk ignores wikipedia policies. Get-back-world-respect 10:54, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with just linking to the Chilean coup of 1973 article instead of repeating the entire debate in this article? V V   11:04, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your link to the coup, I do not appreciate your attempts to force your own opinion into this article, e.g. by sneaking in a link replacing another saying the opposite or by redefining against warning and without explanation. Get-back-world-respect 11:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I have explained all my edits, although I realize there was that edit conflict on the talk page which fouled things up. I don't see how I'm forcing my opinion, whatever that is alleged to be. It seems your opinion is that (a) anti-Americanism as a term is basically propaganda to deflect foreign policy critique, (b) alleged anti-Americanism is actually anti-Westernism, and (c) terrorism against the US is not anti-Americanism but just anger. This is an interesting theory, but I don't see why this one viewpoint should be laid out entirely in the intro section, which seems to be what you're trying to do. A low level of detail is wholly appropriate there. V V   11:20, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * A) is supported by stevertigo, Chomsky, the person who added the Chomsky quote and so many others that it belongs in the introduction. b) Al Quaida terrorism is actually anti-Westernism as attacks in Madrid, Djerba and elsewhere show which belongs in the introduction as long as the introduction reports alleged links between terrorism and anti-Americanism c) is a misrepresentation of what someone else wrote and which I reincluded, that terrorism (which is disgusting and stupid) is fueled by anger. Get-back-world-respect 11:45, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * As I now see, even our own article Chilean coup of 1973 makes it clear: According to declassified U.S. documents, Pinochet came to power with important help from the United States, which had undermined Allende's government through economic pressures and diplomatic isolation, as well as funding and propaganda support to Allende's opponents.
 * The scope of the U.S. role in the coup itself has not been established, but a document released by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 2000 titled "CIA Activities in Chile" revealed that the CIA actively supported the military junta after the overthrow of Allende and that it made many of Pinochet's officers into paid contacts or agents of the CIA or U.S. military, even though the agency knew that they were involved in systematic and widespread human rights abuses.
 * Why are you trying to twist here what you did not manage to twist elsewhere? Get-back-world-respect 11:19, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Well that article is in flux - concentrate on the facts, not the summaries. I believe that paragraph was due to JamesMLane, but I'm not sure.  Anyway, the facts, not the spin, show the US did not know about the coup until getting word about it on the 9th, was not planning the coup, and knew little of Pinochet.  The vast majority of the text you quote there is about what occurred after the coup (and the spin fails to put context in, such as that paid informants were evaluated individually as to whether the information they gave made dealing with unsavory characters worth it), which is not relevant.  Anyway, I repeat, we do not need to have this whole debated embedded in this page as well. V V    11:25, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * It is well known that Pinochet had US support, "patriots" like you may question whether the coup itself was supported by the CIA, so keep it that way. There were no unanswered notes supporting your continuous redefining of the article as you claim in summary of your last one. Please stop. Get-back-world-respect 11:33, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can deal with mentioning the support of Pinochet once he was in power, although I wish articles like this would actually provide Cold War context and the like. And, yes, I explained above why the intro should be made more minimal.  This "anger" theory is way out of scope, as I've noted twice.  There is no "redefinition" going on; that was some newfangled way of introducing the subject that was not there last I worked on this article. V V    11:50, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * You can find cold war context in the extra article. The "anger theory" is just a note that terrorism is also fueled by anger rather than solely prejudices. The way of introducing is supported as I already pointed out, and what you did was not only redefining but also unbalancing and even twisting (deleting the CIA declassified documents but including the whitewash and making "alluding to anti-semitism into "linked to anti-semitism"). Get-back-world-respect 11:58, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I said "related to", in that prejudices against a group are related. And as I said I eliminated that because of your repeated objections to it (though I don't agree with them). I see you consider the IC report "whitewashing", but it is actually relevant, while the declassified documents are not (they are about abandoned 1970 operations). And, to repeat for the nth time, it is better when the intro is controversial to keep it to a minimum. Theories about the causes of terrorism do not belong here; this is about anti-Americanism, and terrorism was only mentioned as an example of an alleged affect of it. V V    12:06, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Since you do not refrain from repeating crucial and unsupported edits and we are both way over the three reverts I ask for protection. Get-back-world-respect 12:01, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I have supported my edits. Your lack of justification for including this "anger" theory, as well as provocative wholesale reverts, have made this difficult. V V    12:06, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * You repeatedly reverted unexplained, twisting as I pointed out. It is important to mention that declassified show US support for a dictatorial regime that ignored human rights, a CIA whitewash for the coup itself is irrelavant here since this is about legitimate criticism of the US and not denials. Are we not both ok with the current version of that paragraph?
 * As I explained, the "anger theory" is only needed as long as anti-Americanism is mentioned in connection with terrorism in the introduction. As you rightly say, causes of terrorism do not belong here from either side, in accordance with your request for conciseness. Get-back-world-respect 12:19, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agreed to your Chile paragraph, although I had the reservations noted. You have yet to show me one of these "unexplained reversions", but no matter.  Terrorism is an excellent example of a believed effect; the full debate on whether it is an actual effect is not needed.  Your theory that 9/11 was general "anti-westernism" I don't think has merit, but I have kept this counter anyway in the rewording. V V    12:46, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * So you think Al Quaida just went to Madrid and Djerba because George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld protect the US so well? As you rightly said, causes of terrorism do not belong in the introduction. You started discussing at 23:51, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC), your fundamental rewrites had started 01:31, 2 Jul 2004, you made an unexplained revert at 09:49, 2 Jul 2004, and reverted the introduction three times    before you exlpained it at 11:20, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC). You also twisted the Chilean paragraph in spite of warning. Get-back-world-respect 13:33, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I did not twist anything, and I don't know what this "warning" talk is about. Who is entitled to issue warnings?  Al-Qaida attacks are calculated.  The Madrid bombing, e.g., was plausibly due to Spain's alliance with the U.S. in Iraq, and intended to break it in the coming election; recall bin Laden's "peace offer" to Europe.  Anyway, this sounds like a personal theory, which is not intro material.  I think it's even silly people deny anti-Americanism at all, but we do note that they do. V V    19:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * You twisted the "alludes to anti-semitism" into "is connected to anti-semitism", and "declassified documents show (with link(" into "widely believed against better evidence (only with link stating the opposite of the previous one). The rule is that substantial edits should not been done without discussion at talk. As I showed, you repeatedly ignored talk and still revert in spite of the fact that another user stated his concerns, which everyone is entitled to, and there is clearly not yet a consensus in favour of your edits. I insist that if you want to keep the connection between terrorism and anti-Americanism the opposing view that Al Quaida terrorism is anti-western rather than anti-American should be covered as prominently. There were hundreds of foreigners in the WTC, and terrorism in Djerba was clearly not anti-American. Get-back-world-respect 14:24, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate you characterizing my edits as "twisting" anything. I provided a link with relevant information about Chile, not one with irrelevant documents.  These edits are not "substantial", mostly fixing small items or bad writing, and I discussed them at Talk.  I never "ignored" Talk or any other concerns.  I explained why I don't agree with your point re terrorism.  Besides your view being unsubstantiated (see above), it is not needed.  The intro you are pushing is, writing-wise, a mess.  You may have been able to push them earlier without anyone noticing, but this article has a long history with many interested parties, and the insertion of theories of "anger" into the intro and so on is a relatively new phenomenon. V V    19:45, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * As I showed above and with links a lot of what you replied is wrong. I think we have to agree to differ and let others judge on their own. I requested comments at Requests_for_comment. I made my most important edits of this article on May 30, there were dozens of edits by others afterwards and no one else complained about the intro as you did or wanted to include terrorism. Regarding "anger", that was not written by me, and I agreed to delete it. Get-back-world-respect 23:43, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A reversion war on a talk page? - please stop it. Secretlondon 22:47, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)