Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 19

Lots of subjectivity
This page is teeming with subjective statements. I am going to try and make it as objective as possible without removing any of the content of the article.

Also if you live in the United States and have had extensive education of its history, you will know that protesting Vietnam and other American wars is not considered anti-American. Most educated Americans consider it positive, necessary, and patriotic to criticize the government when it takes actions with which one disagrees (such as unjust wars).

Totally Inappropriate Picture
That picture is really terrible. It is a slap in the face to those promoting what they believe is in the best interest of America. At best, its placement implies that opponents of the Vietnam War are "anti-american." At worst, it suggests that mere critisism of the US is "anti-american." I find it hard to swallow that you see it more appropriate to illustrate "anti-americanism" with a photo of anti-war protesters than with a picture of a KKK rally for example. Surely you don't believe that open and unabbated racial hatred and violence targeted at fellow Americans is less "anti-american" than public outcry over the policies of the US.

If that kind of behavior is indeed "anti-american," why is legal protection for it enshrined in the Constitution? Surely only virulent "anti-americans" such as George Washington would provide a provision for the unadulterated expression of these views.(Sarcasm). Are you accusing the Bill of Rights and founding fathers of being "anti-american?" That kind of slanderous accusation sounds like the sort of thing only an "anti-american" would say.

My point here is that it is INDISPUTABLY baised lable to this snapshot of the American democratic system in progess as an unambiguously "anti-american" act. This sort of logic only leads to a cyclical loop that eventually points back to the accuser as the "anti-american." The picture should be taken down, and will be taken down, if no convincing justification can be given for its inclussion in the article.

What about the environment
The united states is the single biggest polluter in the world and yet is behind in terms of utilizing alternative energies, pressuring corporations to clean up their dump sites, and especially the recent rejection of the Kyoto protocol. Bush doesnt even acknowlege that global warming is a problem I just want to get the discussion going so we can add something about global views of american ignorance of progressive environmental policy.


 * This article is not the place for personal criticism of the United States. Terms like 'biggest polluter' and 'ignorance' also do not meet wikipedia's POV policy. Environmental issues may be a reason people criticize the United States, but they are not necessarily and demonstrably a source of the concept of Anti-Americanism. Tfine80 01:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should be a mention somewhere that there is widespread global criticism of many US government policies and laws with relation to the environment, especially since nearly all first-world nations' environmental policies are much more progressive and responsible. Honestly, the article seems biased without a mention of this important issue. Does anyone object if I include some info about critisisms of US environmental policy? I'll give it a few days for people to respond, but if no-one does, then I'm going to go ahead. I'll be as objective as possible. --Qirex 10:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "Perceived lack of attention to environmental issues" exists under Other Points in the list of Criticisms. If you'd like to make it's own point like so

ok, but make it in keeping with what's already there. Marskell 11:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Environmental criticsm
 * Criticised for producing x% of pollution.
 * etc.
 * and so forth

the simpsons??
Someone wrote this, which I removed:

"American popular culture promotes this view to some extent - the popular animated television show The Simpsons, for example, makes frequent references to American beliefs that they alone are, and should be, responsible for the planet's welfare and development - a view that is not well-accepted by the 97% of the planet's population outside the USA."

if you can give examples of this, fine; but as the simpsons is highly satirical, i imagine the writer is confusing reality with parody.

Benwing 06:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I recall one episode in which the nuclear power plant is bought by Germans. Homer asks Lisa for info on Germany, and she subsequently tells him that Germany is one of the economic superpowers of the world. Homer's response is to ask "Because we send them lots of money?" This is only one example of course, but reveals an underlying assumption that the USA is responsible for the world's welfare! And that statistic of 97% is correct - the USA accounts for only 2.3% of the planet's population.


 * Homer is stupid. I don't think his opinions are supposed to be taken seriously. Cadr 20:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Homer is stupid. Its no wonder he is portrayed as "an average american father" to the rest of the world. Another show (When the Simpons visit Brazil) has Homer walking on the beach with a white shirt that has Uncle Sam grabbing the Earth as if it was a hamburguer, and taking a huge bite out of it, with the saying "Try and Stop US if you can!". And Benwing, Im sorry, but that stuff really happens.

What stuff really happens? Anyway, every one of these examples is obvious satire. Perhaps you don't recognize it, but the Simpsons is deliberately making fun of these attitudes; that's why they're put in Homer's mouth, not Lisa's. Benwing 03:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The stuff that really happens is a view that is not well-accepted by the 97% of the planet's population outside the USA. The show tries to show the audience that Homer is stupid, has small-minded aspirations, self-centered, full of prejudice, etc etc etc...as implies that the average american is just like him. And to paraphrase my old teacher Ms. Bennett, "they´re not laughing with you, they are lauging at you". Did you know the Simpsons have a huge audience in Latin America? And do you know why that is? Because of the open, in-your-face critics it makes to US politics and government, as well as society. Its not funny because its telling a joke. Its funny because it is a joke.LtDoc 04:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC) --- Good God! Hello people, The Simpsons is a BRILLIANT show - that is, it's outstanding SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SATIRE. Satire! SATIRE!! Look up the word in wiki if you don't know what it means. Then watch another episode while repeating SATIRE like a mantra. The original comment directly stated that shows like The Simpsons PROMOTES America's "numero uno" egotism. Promotes!? If you truly think this is the case, I can only think that you are looking for an excuse to hate the US. The comment above seems to imply that the show "tells it like it is", and when it is shown abroad, the "joke's on us". It's not. It's made by Americans, and the script - the backbone of the show's humor - is written by Americans, many of whom are products of liberal bastions of academia (Harvard, etc.) Americans get the joke, but it doesn't always translate abroad.

Speaking of which, The Simpsons has a huge following in the UK, probably bigger than that of Latin America. Perhaps some Brits will have a bone to pick with this, but the kind of humor presented in the Simpsons is quite British in a sense - it's witty, satirical, and subtle. The polar opposite of American slapstick humor (a la Adam Sandler). Most British understand it's an American show making a mockery of American culture. Those who don't recognize this will have their head spinning if they ever come to the UK!


 * Actually the text reads (or read, since it was deleted) that "American popular culture promotes this view (that americans are self-centered and believe that the world spins around them, bla bla bla)". Then it states that "the simpsons (...)makes frequent references to American beliefs that they alone are, and should be, responsible for the planet's welfare and development".

Please read before making such statements.LtDoc 20:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

...erm, so what's your point? your statement implies that Americans actually think that way you fail to note the most important aspect of the show: SATIRE. Need I say it again and again until I turn blue in the face?

My point, anon writer, is that 1)A little punctuation wouldnt hurt your sentences and 2) Some citziens of the US actually believe that.

In case you did not notice, "The Simpsons"(One of my favorite shows) is a cartoon! Don't pick an American show and think that this is what the whole world sees. Plenty of other countries have their own shows or CARTOONS!(.......) that depict what we(Americans) do is wrong or injust in their own eyes. If they don't like it they don't have to watch it, just like we don't have to watch their programs. But, people like you take little stuff like that and make America seem like it is trying to rule the world with our humor. -SGT. U.S. ARMY_

picture
getting away from the simpsons stuff, the current opening photo needs to have a caption saying it's a protest against the Vietnam War, which was not imperialist in any literal sense of the word -- and in any case using "American Imperialism" with regards to that conflict is POV. J. Parker Stone 05:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

or better yet have some contemporary photo of people burning the American flag or something, which is more relevant with regards to this subject today (particularly in the Mid-East) than the Vietnam War. J. Parker Stone 05:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The last photo -- of a recent antiwar demonstration in NYC -- was even worse, but this photo is not very good, either. You really need a photo that is [a] not showing Americans; [b] contains criticisms directed at the US in general, rather than at some specific policy. (Yes, some will object that Americans can be anti-American, too; but the standard must be set higher to prove this, and in any case for a subject this controversial we need a clear, unquestionable photo at the top. Benwing 21:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Relevance of this Discussion
A lot of the people here have some very strong opinions for and against anti-american sentiment, and that is a valid discussion. But the fact that this sentiment exists and is extremely prevelant not only in foreign countries but in America as well means that it deserves an article for itself, explaining anti-american sentiment and it's causes, no matter how wrong, biased, or wrongly stereotypical you think anti-american sentiment is. So I suggest we stop bickering over the validity of Anti-american sentiment. Discuss it somewhere else, or be constructive and add your justifications for or criticisms of anti-american sentiment into the article. Xunflash 03:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * yeah, and someone replace the goddamn picture. no one cares about a coupla hippies in Wichita J. Parker Stone 04:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Nice Subject
Hi! I'm a 16-year-old Chinese who lived in Japan for eight years, and I'd like to say, "NICE SUBJECT!!" I believe that knowing the image of America or any country is important, since they are the main causes of wars and such, and I really want understanding between the world instead of hating each other. (I know, I sound stupid.) I used to absolutely hate America when I lived in Japan, more because of the outrageous American culture than anything else. Sure, I certainly care about how US acts politically, but the culture thing is more prominent. The movies often show nudity, as well as--well--sex, which was absolutely outrageous and unusual. Now I know that (I live in US right now) US is a pretty decent country, but becuase it's the "best country in the world," it is expected to be perfect, but it's not, so people hate that. It's the paradox of power--the situation is exactly like that of parents and teenagers. Like, teenagers have to depend on the parents because they're powerful, but at the same time resent it, since they want to be independent. Also, teenagers often expect parents to be perfect, being fair but not too tough, being kind but not too soft, etc. I know that I sound extremely stupid, but I just wanted to say this--I have wanted to for ever!

But anyways, I'd also like to comment that China is more anti-Japanese than anti-Americans. In fact, pretty much all the Eastern Asian countries are. WWII caused this sentiment, since pretty much all the Eastern Asian countries were occupied by Japan. In fact, China much prefer US to Japan.

Thanks for your time in reading it--I wanted to express my opinion on this for like, ever, and I'm glad I got a chance. If I offended anybody, I apologize--it's not in my intention. --

"The movies often show nudity, as well as--well--sex, which was absolutely outrageous and unusual. This is a common misnomer in non-Western countries. The perception is that Americans are "loose" and their big-breasted women will hump anything and anyone. Little do people know that western Europeans are FAR more "loose" in this sense. Not that they will hump chairs, but that Americans are FAR more uptight when it comes to nudity and sex than Europeans. Just look at the ridiculous amount of attention surrounding the Janet Jackson Superbowl controversy (or are you, like many overseas Chinese, not quite in tune with the local goings-on of your host country?) Keep in mind that China & Japan don't just air every single American TV show and movie - they have to pick and choose from a limited pool. Pamela Anderson's "VIP", for reasons unbeknownst to me, airs in China, but not "Little House on the Prairie". Of course that's gonna make Americans all look like blonde bikini-clad sex fiends.

Besides, try examining your own cultural mores and analyze why exactly you paint nudity and sex with one brush, and describe both as "absolutely outrageous". Personally, I think it's absolutely outrageous that nudity is often equated with sex, and that more media censorship is leveled on both rather than on violence. China, US, and Japan are all guilty of this - many European countries have stronger standards on scenes of violence than nudity (which is NOT the same as sex) in their media, which I think is a much better policy.

Chikka Chikka


 * Actually, what I think is completely ridiculous in America is how afraid they are of nudity and sex, in some ways, and most of the European people I know agree with me so I guess it's "widespread opinion" (I too am fed up with unsourced opinion here but there's nothing I can do against it; besides, we actually have a nice sample of anti-american and pro-american opinions here, so I think it's somehow representative). My point is that whereas all but a few American movies have their "sex scene", it's mostly implied and you rarely see anything. The reason is, if you see a nipple the movie's going to be R-rated or whatever you call it in the US. On the other hand, you can see countless muders in a number of ways before you're twelve. The American (perceived) fear of sex and lack of care about violence was emphasized with that soooo ridiculous scandal about Janet Jackson, but in Europe the scandal of Monica and Clinton was ridiculed for the same reason (he can f*** whoever he wants provided he rules the country alright, didn't Kennedy?). Maybe the availability of guns and cars by 16 while you can't drink before you're 21 needs mentionning here, too.


 * Does anyone else think the line "Criticisms of excessive religiosity and "Puritanism" or conversely, immorality and vulgarity" needs expanding?


 * By the way, I think more people should check what's actually in the article before they post here. That's what this Talk is about, isn't it?


 * I know I didn't, but that's because I'm prejudiced against Americans and like making fun of them. I feel that being aware of it and its wrongness is a great step towards objectively criticizing Americans while being able to give the benefit of doubt and be relatively neutral to the Americans I encounter :) Oh, and see the good things in America, too.Jules LT 16:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Forget about expanding that line: most lines in the list deserve major expanding with pros and cons, and that would make the article unreadable. Still, all these call for explanations, since to understand you need to know a lot already. What you expect from an encyclopedia is to teach you these things. For example, an American who never went abroad and isn't familiar with anti-americanism but wants to learn about it would IMHO not get what people feel is wrong in half of those subject and might think it is completely groundless. What we need is pages for each major criticism with its causes, its justifications and the criticisms against it. That would make for a much more comprehensive article while keeping it easy to read. The American exceptionalism article is a good example of what I have in mind, although most criticisms would only deserve a much shorter article of course. I'll see about that when I have time, but I hope someone will have begun by then... *hint* *hint* Jules LT 16:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly: we expand the points, the article is unreadable--and indeed the article has been unreadable for most of the last six months. Simply splitting off each criticism though would multiply the problem. It is not unfair for an article to assume some background knowledge on particulars so I don't see how this article short-changes people. On any given topic that the list points to you will probably find America discussed anyhow and a whole bunch of "U.S. and..." articles I don't think are needed; discussing world politics, economics or security without mentioning the U.S. is like talking about oceans without mentioning the Pacific. Other articles have it covered and I really think this is decent as it stands. Also, do you mind indenting your paragraphs--hate to see Talk become unreadable (or is that an oxymoron? :) Marskell 16:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's more of a pleonasm :) Sorry about the indenting, I haven't been around for that long so I tend to forget about it.


 * The thing is many of these deserve expanding. You can't expect people to know the details of all the criticisms against the US. In fact, I think that's what they'd come here for in the first place. I think the general pages of which the US are only a particular case are unhelpful, when that particular case is so peculiar. I've changed a couple of the links already, pointing to "american imperialism" instead of "imperialism" and "Gun politics in the United States" instead of "gun control"; there actually are tons of pages already done on controversial issues about the United States, it's a shame they aren't all linked to from here. I'll have to add them to the See Also list at the end of the page, too, and then that section will probably need to have some categories. Jules LT 15:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This page is about "Anti-americanism" not "Detailed list of every possible criticism of the United States"... If you look through this article's history, you will find that this strategy did not create an article with some kind of convenient list of criticisms for those poor folks unaware of these controversies but a massive soapbox and edit war swamp that was a shame for Wikipedia. Moreover, the proper way to discuss these issues would not be in the article context of "Criticism of X"; this is not encyclopedic, but reflects current political discourse or debate. You could have articles about "gun control policy" or the issue of "obesity", but articles like "Accusations of American ignorance" or your observational "Perceived American Puritanism about Sex" would be ridiculous. And I also politely suggest that anyone who says even tongue-in-cheek that they are "prejudiced against Americans and like making fun of them" and somehow thinks this makes them more objective should reconsider their attitudes and ability to write NPOV on this article. Tfine80 19:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * BTW, I think that the link changes were entirely appropriate and very good, but I am just worried by some of your rhetoric on this talk page because this article is a perpetual tinderbox. Tfine80 19:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I'm worrying you, I might have been a bit trollish here (from the fun I had writing; but since I think this is somehow constructive I'd rather call it "devil's advocate-ish"). I'll try to keep that to the minimum, in the future. I don't want to upset people.


 * Still, I think that when you talk about anti-americanism you should be able to follow links to know why there is such a thing and why it might, or might not, be justified. I consider that the pages I pointed to are an essential complement to understand this article well and if they hadn't existed I would have done all I could to make them happen (admittedly, not that much since I have limited free time). I think this is the whole point of cross-referencing: you want to understand an article better so you follow the explanatory link... and then you jump to another article and keep on reading, learning and hopefully end up loving the place and contributing :)


 * "Accusations of American ignorance" would indeed be a ridiculous article. I think "Prejudices against Americans" would not. I'm not sure how the peculiar way Americans feel about sex and violence imageries would fit in one or several articles, but at least the perception that many have of it is worthy of notice and for those who do not share these views it is a complex enough matter to make more than a line of explanation necessary.


 * By the way, I'm not saying that my prejudices make me objective. I'm saying that knowing that I'm prejudiced, as we all are since a subject's view is by definition subjective, enables me to refrain from spilling POV around. I don't think I put any POV in the article but I'd be glad if you pointed out any piece of it I could wipe out. In fact, I am at the moment doing a 6 month internship in New York City and came here partly because I am strongly aware of my prejudices and want to confront them to the facts Jules LT 23:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Just want to clarify one thing:

"Maybe the availability of guns and cars by 16 while you can't drink before you're 21 needs mentionning here, too." The 1968 Gun Control Act requires that people buying handguns must be at least 21. Obviously this law has a lot of loopholes (it doesnt prevent someone under 21 from buying ammo, for example), but the law is there on the books. Guns in general are not that widely available in major American cities to the average non-gang member, though their actual legality varies quite a bit by state. I'm not certain about car laws, but they certainly vary by state just like guns; if I remember correctly, the trend is that the less populated the state, the more likely you can drive at a younger age and/or have higher speed limits. (Keep in mind that unlike western Europe, we have a HUGE SWATH of not-very-populated states). Also, I know of no American company that will rent cars to those under 21. The drinking age WAS 18 at varying points in the past few decades, but every time they did that, alcohol-related driving accidents would always spike. The powers that be saw that this was a consistent trend, so the drinking age was changed back to 21 in the early 80's, and hasn't changed since. Of course, any American college freshmen with even a bit of social life can attest to the prevalence of underage drinking. So the availability vs. legality of all three things you stated is not as clearcut as you seem to imply in the US.


 * Thank you so much, there were quite a few loopholes in what I knew, too. I thought I had seen somewhere that you could get a gun by 16, but maybe that's only the ammunition, or maybe you can get a gun if accompanied by an adult or something; I'll go check in the law pages of WP. Still, I'd be interested to know if there's any bit of education going on about them, since the movies and TV make weapons look so cool to the young and impressionnable (and often that lasts through adulthood,too), because it doesn't seem that hard to get one if you want it, as seen from here, even if it's not as widely available as it is when you're 21.


 * I agree that in low-population states even young people need to drive if they're going to gain any bit of independence. Only then the driver's license should be probatory and very easy to remove by the police so the kids don't fool around. As a point of comparison, in France you can get a special driver's license by 16 that you can use only in the presence of an adult with a normal driver's license. Following recent reform, any driver's license more recent than two years can be revocated after only a couple of minor offenses. Cars are among the most dangerous things there is that are widely available, and should be handled with care.


 * As for drinking, I've been in NYC for two months and I know that drunk driving by young problem would hardly be a problem here, with all the cabs and the 24/7 underground. Still, people keep ID-ing for the sake of ID-ing, letting gross fakes go and simply bothering everyone (although not as much as the tipping system, but that's out of the present scope), while not preventing the reckless (the really dangerous ones) from doing anything. I don't think you have such a big chapter about alcohol in the American driver's manual as we have(which you DO have to know nearly by heart before you get a driver's license, don't you??); otherwise, the peaks of drunk driving wouldn't be that bad when the drinking age is lowered.


 * So I'm going to rephrase that: "The availability of cars by 16 and widespread presence of guns in houses with impressionnable kids while you can't legally get in a bar or buy alcohol before 21 needs mentionning here". I know it all has justifications and strong defendants, but I can't help but feel that it's also the product of a society where violence is not nearly as much frowned upon as sex and alcohol (I really had to struggle hard not to put in examples of societies where this principle is pushed to the extreme, here).Jules LT 18:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

laundry list in "anti-american rhetoric"; concept of "anti-american"; pov tag
imo this article confuses anti-americanism with criticism of particular us policies. anti-americanism is stereotyping of the u.s. as a whole, or vague accusations such as calling the u.s. "imperialist", which is usually a term of abuse. it is not simply criticism of some aspect of u.s. policy. some of the items in the list are typical of anti-american criticism e.g. "Cultural imperialism through spread of English language and American popular culture" and "Claims of excessive nationalism (or patriotism), widespread ignorance and arrogance toward foreigners"; others are merely policy criticisms, e.g. "Support for military dictatorships and totalitarian governments during and after the Cold War"; others may or may not be depending on what exactly is said, e.g. the vague item "American social problems, including high rates of imprisonment and homelessness". the list needs to separate these out.

also, the pov tag needs a *specific* accompanying discussion in the talk page, or it shouldn't be there. Benwing 05:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that there is no threshold to determine what type of rhetoric is anti-American and what is criticism. What seems anti-American to an American just seems like normal criticism in anti-American POV. It would actually be more POV to declare what is Anti-American rhetoric definitively. The article had gotten completely out of control and this grouping of rhetoric tried to incorporate all of the previous criticism, so it is an effect the result of an interesting experiment of how people define Anti-American criticism.  I think that there is a kernel of validity in nearly every major criticism, but anti-Americanism can only be the pathological use of this criticism or the criticism of America as the basis of an ideology. Tfine80 14:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I still think it's reasonable to separate out the vague criticisms that are *typical* of an anti-American ideology and those that are criticisms of specific policies but which may appear as part of such an ideology. For example, "support for military dictatorships" refers to specific policies that can be pointed to; "cultural imperialism" OTOH is extremely vague.  The vaguer a criticism, the more likely it is to be "pathological". Benwing 02:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I partially created the list to eliminate the mess that had been created without being accused of deleting people's edits for no reason. Look at the history.  Before this list there were endless and contradictory criticisms about the United States along with aggressive attempts to respond. On the other hand, if someone hates American culture is that anti-American? what if they think Americans are ignorant? what if they are still angry about some war 40 years ago? what if they see malicious motives in every American policy action? What are the exact differences between possible Anti-American strands within Communism, Radical Islam, the European left, Latin America, etc....  If we tried to define the strands and decide what parts of their rhetoric makes them Anti-American, we would just be guessing arbitrarily. If it exists, Anti-Americanism is less its rhetoric, than its ideological and political function. Tfine80 04:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The Americans never landed on the Moon?
I feel that at least half of the Europeans have strong doubts as to whether the Americans landed on the Moon and a consistent minority think it was a hoax. That has left me wondering quite a bit, thinking of why they should come to such conclusions even when they haven't even read or listened to academic but also more popular publications. Usually they are big supporters of the conspiracy theory and I think that this all fits within the anti-American movement. Maybe this article could have additions about space exploration, how people perceive it, and the facts about it as it seems it is strictly related to all other subjects contained in the article. --Wikipedius 11:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Now, Now... I know many Europeans, in fact I am one myself and I don't think any of them has any serious doubts about the American moon landing. Not more than in the US I would think. And to see this as related to Anti-Americanism seems very far-fetched. You will find many better reasons in the article. --Piet 16:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Its nonsense to say that "at least half of the Europeans" don't believe the moon landing. As a European, who has lived in various European countries over many years, I can tell you that the only person I've every met who doubted the moon landing was an American friend. Seabhcán 15:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Changes
First, the intro is now three lines rather than three paragraphs. This page has changed SO REGULARLY it has almost ceased to be useful and a concise intro is the most likely to stick. Plz if you do change it have a good reason and defend it in talk; additions can go into use of the term. Some other changes to eliminate wordiness and re-introduce a couple of important points that had been cut. Marskell 20:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with almost all of your edits. The attempt to simplify the article was why it has undergone a flurry of changes recently. One point. I'm not sure un-American and the contemporary use of "anti-American" are really analogous. I think un-American usually has been used to describe an action or belief that diverges from American values. Perhaps it has had different currency in different periods.  Also, I still think some people might disagree with the definition of Anti-Americanism as "a consistent hostility", but as of now I guess it's the best we have. Tfine80 21:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way... do you still think that this article should be under anti-American sentiment rather than Anti-Americanism proper? My concern is that anti-American sentiment is what partially enabled and justified the strange verbosity of the article (even though I know this was a long process with a complicated history). An -ism is an interesting possible social phenomenon, something that could conceivably have a history and be isolated to some degree. Sentiment can be varied and nearly infinite in history and scope. It also seems worrisome that this title could justify other articles about anti-Italian sentiment, anti-Russian sentiment, etc., that could become thinly veiled forums as well. Tfine80 21:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree the page should be re-named Anti-Americanism. I was actually the person who merged Anti-Americanism with Anti-American sentiment and I think I left sentiment in because the bulk of the material was under that header. At the time the argument was basically that Anti-Americanism was full-blown prejudice and Anti-American sentiment a sort of milder version. It was a distinction without a difference and I thought it silly; your right that it led to a lot of useless semantic nit-picking. The one argument for "sentiment" being used is that it's consistent with Anti-Australian sentiment and Anti-French sentiment in the United States. Anyhow, change it if you like.


 * I actually think that there should be a couple more "anti-zzz sentiment" pages. See Anti every country? above. Yes, they could become soapboxes but in particular Anti-Russian sentiment and Anti-Japanese sentiment are quite justified.


 * I will tweak the line regarding usage of the term for Americans themselves. Marskell 16:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Noted that term may be applied to Americans themselves but only rarely and that it is used in reference both to individuals and governments. Made the third sentence a short intro to History. The wording may not be perfect in the intro but I like it now because it is strictly denotative. The problem in the past (and it doesn't just apply to this article) was that that slippery connotative commentary would be added at the start and then become subject to endless revision. In fact, I'm going to take the bold step of eliminating the neutrality tag. We'll see how long that lasts... Marskell 16:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is that anti-americanism isn't one consistent unified system but an accumulation of them. There are very different kinds of anti-americanisms based on religion, fear of the American military power, anger at the flow of American popular culture that progressively replaces individual countries', anti-capitalism/anti-liberalism focused on the country that seems to embody those principles most... and they all differ widely from each other in many ways.


 * Which is to say, maybe the most accurate title would be "Anti-americanisms" but it would feel weird to most. "Anti-american sentiment" sure is a risky title since it justifies inserting anything one feels against the US. I feel "Anti-americanism" fits best.Jules LT 16:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Requested move
Anti-American sentiment → Anti-Americanism – Consensus in talk is for new name. Edit history unfortunately already exists there so this can't be done easily. There have been previous mergers. Marskell 09:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 


 * Support Marskell 09:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * SupportJules LT 13:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * SupportTfine80 18:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Dhartung | Talk 09:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. Dragons flight 02:40, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

Copied request from WP:RM. Struck out double vote. If a strait choice, proposal counts as a vote for the move. Gets around the problem of the WP:RM rough consensus threshold for a requested move when no one else votes! Philip Baird Shearer 14:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)