Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 23

Who is who
Just so that we're all clear, User:Marielleh and User:Christinam are the same person; in looking back at Marielleh's edits this actually makes perfect sense. The former has been blocked indefinitely along with at least two other socks. The Christinam account may come back to edit here after her block but, to be frank, I'm not assuming good faith at this point. Marskell 16:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Alternative Photo


Here is a photo where an image from the Abu Ghraib scandal is being used in an example of Anti-Americanism.

This would probably be more neutral, and more immediately relevant to the article.--DCAnderson 16:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I say very good: it's a direct comment on the issue and on the country itself Be bold and add it. Marskell 16:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I like it, too. Tom Hope

its manufactured, unbalanced propaganda. A perfect example of anti-americanism. Mrdthree 07:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Come on folks...
"In Japan and South Korea, much anti-Americanism has focused on the rude behavior of American military personnel, aggravated especially by repeated sexual assaults on locals by U.S. servicemen. The on-going U.S. military presence in Okinawa remains a contentious issue in Japan.[14]" Yes, the on-going U.S. Miltary presence in Okinawa is a contentious issue. NO the mention of REPEATED sexual Assualts on locals by US servicemen is not neccessary.

Funny also that the article mentions "Guantanamo Concentration Camps".. and "CIA Torture Flights" Bias Showing through?

Contemporary understanding of what constitutes a "concentration camp" is not Gitmo.. it's Auschwitz.

CIA Torture Flights have not been confirmed to have been made, either by the "receiving" govts involved, or the "exporting" US govt. Perhaps a National Inquirer citation should be thrown in there. Also, the naming of such flights as "CIA Torture Flights" is extremely inflamatory, suggestive and irresponsible if the goal is a factual, unbiased article. But since a newspaper names it that, I guess that makes it O.K.


 * We've had a problem with an editor pushing POV. It needs a thorough going over. On your points:
 * Disagree on one. "Repeated" is taken directly from the BBC source. It warrants a mention: absolutely (and of course naturally) the sexual crimes have been a locus for anti-American sentiment in Jap. and Kor.
 * Agree absolutely on concentration camps. "Torture flights" should be put in brackets if it is used at all. Marskell 16:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And the BBC has admitted it demonstrates an anti-American bias in its reporting, "We are biased, admit the stars of BBC" Sugplumxx 18:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But anti americanism is not based on facts or proof. It is the views of people and many of them will probably accept these as true or grow in distaste for america due to scandal and propaganda. You can't remove something because there is no proof of it or bacause it's over the top but you have to say why people use these examples for american hatred.

True; the sexual assault cases have been notable in the context of Japanese anti-americanism, but the phraseology used is still leaning towards POV. I've changed "repeatedly" to "high-profile cases of" since it reflects the two important facts: A - That there was more than one case (though I think I'm correct in thinking that not all are actually proven cases, some are still ongoing) and B - That the incidents were widely reported in Japan (and mentioned by BBC, FOX et al). I think that should please everyone :). Edders 12:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, Edders, that anti-Americanism is not always based on facts or proof, as you said. From my experiences, I believe some nonviolent anti-Americanism is based on stereotypes and trendiness, which is not well represented in this article, and my challenge is to attempt to add items to illustrate that.


 * That is also why I believe the article should show the anti-Americanism instead of hosting detailed descriptions of why this or that region of the world is anti-American. Show the anti-Americanism and let the reader decide for themself.  I think that is imperative.  But to present something as fact because someone perceived it that way is dangerous.


 * For goodness sakes, there is an entire article about anti-French sentiment from the US, Freedom Fries, based on one incident in history. You can warn me for ranting or ban me or whatever Wikipedia rules are, but there are some people out there who are just getting their licks in, and that doesn't help anyone. To me, it only proves more of this phonomena, and that is what we need to show.  Sugplumxx 18:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Squaring the circle
With the pic issue addressed I'd like to go back to the larger issue of definition. It seems to me that rather than debating what it is, the actual question is "when can it properly be employed?" Suggest for the first para:

"Anti-Americanism is a prejudice against the United States or the American people. In popular practice, a disparate variety of actions and attitudes critical of the United States have been labeled anti-Americanism, including hostility toward its government and culture. The usefulness and accuracy of the term in describing such a broad range has thus often been questioned. The widely-used anti-American sentiment less explicitly implies an actual prejudice and is often used instead."

The first sentence is actually more strict than at present, the point being "if you want to call it anti-Americanism, it actually has to be prejudicial." Toinet, for example (again verbatim in O'Connor): the term "is only fully justified if it implies systematic opposition - a sort of allergic reaction - to America as a whole." This is not a right-wing American polemicist saying "look how bad everyone is to America" but a French academic rather skeptically pointing out "if you actually want to use this term, it actually has to rise to this level." Let's try and make this distinction and edit accordingly. Marskell 17:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ? Would this help us or simply invite more mud-slinging? Marskell 14:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

"Critical and reasoned expression of a disagreement"

"By anti-Americanism, I mean the critical and reasoned expression of a disagreement with what Americans say or do. By Americanophobia, I mean the total visceral rejection of anything that has to do with American culture, democracy, or economy, in short, with American civilization. Anti-Americanism expresses itself through critical acts or words; it may not be reasonable, but it is openly debated in the public sphere and is related to the concrete events that mark the ups and downs of Franco-American relations. Philippe Roger and Jean-François Revel’s recent books abound in examples of this nature (see Chapter one)."

Denis Lacorne - Anti-Americanism and Americanophobia : A French Perspective - March 2005 CERI/FNSP http://www.ceri-sciencespo.com/archive/mars05/artdl.pdf

84.178.189.162 09:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC) - logged in as Rkrichbaum 10:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"Never extending to a total rejection"

"... Anti-Americanism, if we choose to retain the term at all, should be seen as a weak and ambivalent complex of anti-feelings. It does not apply but selectively, never extending to a total rejection of both forms of Americanism: the cultural and the political. Thus we can have either of two separate outcomes; an anti-Americanism rejecting cultural trends which are seen as typically American, while allowing of admiration for America’s energy, innovation, prowess, and optimism, or an anti-Americanism in reverse, rejecting an American political creed that for all its missionary zeal is perceived as imperialist and oppressive, while admiring American culture, from its high-brow to pop varieties. These opposed directions in the critical thrust of anti-Americanism often go hand in hand with opposed positions on the political spectrum. The cultural anti-Americanism of those rising in defense of Europe’s cultural identities is typically on the conservative right wing, whereas the political anti-Americanism of the Cold War and the war in Vietnam typically occurred on the left. Undoubtedly the drastic change in America’s position on the world stage since World War II has contributed to this double somersault. Since that war America has appeared in a radically different guise, as much more of a potent force in every-day life in Europe and the larger world than ever before. ..."

European Anti-Americanism: What’s New? Rob Kroes, University of Amsterdam http://www2.let.uu.nl/solis/nasa/text/kroeslecture.htm

Rkrichbaum 10:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Both these points are covered in the intro so perhaps we should just leave it. Marskell 11:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly not in the formula suggested above, and also not in the current version, which, in addition, is misleading and, at least in part, inaccurate and wrong. I suggest further reading of original sources to reach a better understanding of the term and its usage. Maybe we can first collect a number of relevant quotes and condense them into a more reasonable version. If users insist e.g. upon citing a definition of anti-Americanism as something irrational, verbatim quotes from primary sources, not taken out of context, would certainly help to evaluate their relevance. We can later decide whether such definitions, if they exist, need to be mentioned in the introduction. Rkrichbaum 12:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Source: "By anti-Americanism, I mean the critical and reasoned expression of a disagreement with what Americans say or do."

Current intro: "Whether sentiment hostile to United States reflects reasoned evaluation of specific policies and administrations, rather than a truly prejudiced belief system, is a further complication."


 * The definition of anti-American as "critical and reasoned expression of a disagreement" is obviously not "covered" by a sentence that speaks of "hostile sentiment" and that "it is a further complication" if such feelings "reflect a reasoned evaluation", rather than a hypothetical and unsourced "truly prejudiced belief system". Rkrichbaum 13:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Source: "... Anti-Americanism, if we choose to retain the term at all, should be seen as a weak and ambivalent complex of anti-feelings."

Current intro: "However, it has also been suggested...that the term merely signifies a rough composite of stereotypes, prejudices and criticisms towards Americans or the United States [3]."


 * "Complex anti-feelings" is used in a radically different sense than "rough composite of stereotypes ..." etc. which is obvious from the quote above alone, if it is read in its entirety. Rkrichbaum 13:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There are differences of course—the sources are making assertions while we present debate points—but I actually find these two quotes encouraging in terms of the intro as it stands. Marskell 16:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't post the above, BTW, as a suggested total intro, but just as a first paragraph. Marskell 17:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sir, I think you have an "in degree and in kind" problem. Treating differences in the latter sense, when they are more properly dealt with in the former. Either that, or you just like to argue. Kroes would like to form a binary--good for him. Perhaps we can use this, if and when we want to point out the difference between cultural and political criticism. His preface to the point is this: "Yet the range of (American) behavior is simply too wide—ranging, in culture from the sublime to the vulgar, and in politics from high-minded internationalism to narrow nationalism—to warrant any across-the-board rejection." This differs in degree from, but is not out of keeping with, Katzenstein, which we have in the intro. It differs in degree from, but is not out of keeping with O'Conner, which we have in the intro. Tweak, if you feel "does not rise to total rejection" needs mentioning. But please cease positing gaps that do not exist. Marskell 14:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

exesiv acceptance of homosexuality?
i have never heard any country criticise usa for exesiv acceptance of homosexuality. i would like to see some documentation for this claim


 * That is indeed an interesting edit. For quite a while, the claim was "criticism of lack of gay rights ..., and, conversely (put), acceptance of homophobia". Then an anonymous vandal apparently didn't like it and simply changed "acceptance of homophobia" into the opposite "acceptance of homosexuality", without so much as an explanation, let alone a source. Someone reverted this anonymous vandalism, then someone came along and re-reverted, with the explanation that the word "conversely" was allegedly not appropriately used.


 * I am, like you, very much interested in the source for the claim that "acceptance of homosexuality" is part of what is perceived as "anti-American" criticism, as opposed to, say, the homophobia of the people around Fred Phelps whose activities are indeed frequently cited in the foreign press as an example of outrageous homophobia that seems to be acceptable in the US. Rkrichbaum 13:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is probably more an issue of anti-Westernism than anti-Americanism in this case. I can believe that various conservative Islamic organisations/states have criticized Western countires for liberal social attitudes in general, but I doubt this is really an example of anti-Americanism in the strict sense. Cadr 08:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't need to seek out a conservative Islamic states--Americans criticize their own country for acceptance of homosexuality. Please also note, I have reverted again. All of your specific points are already there with general bullets.


 * Personally, I'd like to scrap this bloody list and turn it into prose. Marskell 08:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to the original question, those who do that are within America itself, like the guy two posts up who didn't sign said. They're the Westboro Baptist Church, based in Topeka, KS. Accordign to them, basically, if you don't want to burn homosexuals at the stake, you're going to Hell. --Jnelson09 00:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Criticisms of the United States" -- too POV; suggested solution
The "Criticisms of the United States" section needs counterbalance to (start to...) make this article less baldly anti-American. I recommend redoing it as a point-counterpoint. (The section that follows, "Criticisms of anti-Americanism," doesn't cut it.) Anyone object? --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-24 09:28 (UTC)


 * Turn both sections into prose and source them is my opinion. A point, counter-point I think will invite OR asides. Marskell 11:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that both should be turned into prose, and specifically, added to the already existing sections above, or, where needed, added under new headings. I'm going to "be bold" and comment out both "Criticisms of the United States" and "Criticisms of anti-Americanism". --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-25 08:16 (UTC)

Panama Canal, Indegenous people, Texas, Phillippines, Slavery, etc.
It may be a good idea to include some historical facts into this article to justify anti-americanism, like the issues i've mentioned above. Obiously history could be considered. 24.23.51.27 02:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I copied this from another website. While I think the writers choice of words may be a bit strong, I nevertheless agree with his main ideas. The writer contends that Anti American sentiment has been increasing drastically since 2000 because the Bush Administration:

1. Intentionally misled the country into an illegal war.

2. Willfully and knowingly violated American law by bypassing FISA court to spy on Americans without judicial approval, including those with no connection to terrorism.

3. Willfully and knowingly violated international law by authorizing an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation.

4. Collusion with numerous corporate entities to increase corporate profits fraudulently with taxpayer dollars, resulting in rampant war profiteering.

5. Conflict of interest, drawing salary from private entities while in office and returning large no-bid government contracts to these entities.

6. Defamation of character, organized attempts to defame their critics.

7. Leaked classified information about their perceived political enemies.

8. Using taxpayer dollars to create and disseminate propaganda deemed illegal by the Government Accountability Office.

9. Violated existing American treaties by authorizing the use of torture.

It sure does seem like it's easy to blame President Bush for a lot of the things wrong with our country. But then again, there are probably reasons that so many people feel the way that they do about him(Oh wait a tick, there are! See above). Spazik007 01:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Number of Anti-Americans
It is estimated that the total number of Anti-Americans are around 4 billion people.-- Noi s  e  t  tes  15:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Any sources? -- Noi s  e  t  tes  16:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides.. how in the world would you determine that? 67.125.132.93 00:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect it's meant as a joke. Hakluyt bean 01:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You lost a few links along the way...
Here are a few links that used to be in the article and still should be:

Opposition to U.S. foreign policy should be a paragraph, not a footnote, and would include:
 * global warming
 * Perceived American Exceptionalism regarding international institutions and international law
 * Perceptions that the United States was the key inspiration for globalization and neoliberal free trade policy (
 * widespread belief among the altermondialists that the IMF is a toy of the United States and aggravates the situation of poor countries (Argentina, Kenya...)
 * Cultural imperialism

Dislike for the "American way of life":
 * Social issues in the United States
 * health care (or absence thereof)
 * War on Drugs
 * gun control policies (or absence thereof)
 * high rates of imprisonment
 * homelessness
 * continued employment of capital punishment

Criticisms of national character
 * Claims of excessive materialism and a peculiar relationship to money
 * Claims of excessive nationalism or blind patriotism
 * Claims of widespread ignorance and arrogance toward foreigners
 * Stereotypes of obesity and fast food diets
 * Criticisms of excessive religiosity and "Puritanism".

There are probably a few things to leave, among all those, but this is aproximately what anti-americanism is in France, which is one of the most anti-American European countries. That nearly none of this is mentionned in the article should ashame the editors. Jules.LT 19:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism in Canada, etc.
The rest of this article is quite well written and reasonably NPOV, but the caption to the Canada picture reads like polemic to me.

I have marked it as NPOV to prevent a revert war. Referencing a blog isn't very substantial research to me. Ggugvunt 14:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would start by saying I am very annoyed by american editors refusing to accept information that makes their country look unpopular, the image itself shows rioters throwing fencing sections at police, if that is not violent, or an illustration of strong feelings, I really do no know what is! --Frogsprog 14:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, you need to calm down a bit. Secondly, if you think the picture is so violent and strong, let it speak for itself.  The text is clear enough without the polemics, which obviously conform to your POV.  I find it interesting that you automatically assume that I am an American editor - please see WP:AGF. Ggugvunt 14:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I am not strictly against any nation, it is quite obvious really that the only people who would reject statements makin america look bad, would be americans, as really there is no international support for the country, though I would never make a statement so bold in an article... --Frogsprog 14:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Listen - my only issue is this: the caption sounded out of place with the reasonable tone of the rest of the article.  Don't jump to conclusions - please.   Can I revert it back to the non-adverbs version and remove the NPOV marker now? Ggugvunt 14:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, a compromise, I will re-add the adverb "violently" but leave out strong--Frogsprog 17:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Much better! Thank you! Ggugvunt 17:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the section. Anti-Americanism in various countries was split from here precisely to avoid such material crowding the general description. As stated in the edit summary, I'd suggest you need to show the specific country is exceptional in its AA attitudes to be included here. Marskell 09:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The other
this section accuses anti americanism of being a cover up for failing nations/systems, POV!!!! will be removed tomorrow if no discussion --Frogsprog 21:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I strongly disagree. Read any scholarly book on the subject of Anti-Americanism as an ideology, and you will see this a core theory. The section does not say it is true and makes no accusations at all. Where are you seeing this? Tfine80 21:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Discrimination Section
this section is quite informative, Marksell justified removal of "in canada" but did not discuss removal of discrimination, I will (grudgingly) tag discrimination as neutrality disputed, along with "the other" which I also believe to be POV, comments welcome on both :) --Frogsprog 10:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The section is simply two anecdotes that don't actually deal with anti-Americanism. Marskell 13:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * anecdotes? I disagree! these are providing a background to people's dislike of america! to repeat myself again! I will not delete the other which i find to be POV, and will tag both as POV please do not remove without detailed discussion and arguments for the removal, "discrimination" is cited from wikiquotes and Is not in any way unsourced--Frogsprog 13:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

An anecdote: "a short account of a particular incident or event of an interesting or amusing nature, often biographical (dictionary.com, quoting Americna Heritage)." Anecdote(s) is what the propesed section amounts to. I'm not debating whether the words were said but whether they belong. The uncited "has caused much resentment in Communist China, and socialist Europe" is the only link. Do present day Chinese really give a shit about quotes from R. Nixon? Do they, to an exceptional degree, such that we should include them here? Cite that, if so. Marskell 22:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Pro Americanism
I'd like to make an observation, if I may. Most of the individuals editing this page seem to be under the impression that if a Frenchman utters "Those American's. It was so wrong to invade Iraq!" then that makes them Anti-American. It's as if, and my bias may be showing a bit here, but at least I'm honest about it and don't make any excuses, but it seems to me like a conservative tactic of those that support our current administration (The people in this country that aren't "Anti Bush") to try to explain away the critiscism from foreign entities as "Anti American". Think about it. Are you "Anti Mexico" because you want congress to pass a hardline immigration bill? There's even a peice in this article that says these "Anti American extremist brainwashing factions" create an "other", a group of people that aren't them, that are unkown and must be feared for their strange ways. This is exactly, EXACTLY what this conservative administration is doing to the us! The fact of the matter is that there was no "logical" reason to invade Iraq. Instead, Bush whipped up Anti-Iraq sentiment with false reports of weapons of mass destruction, catchy bumper sticker slogans, and the inherent suspicion that ALL people, American and Non-American, carry to varying degrees in their heart of those that are different. I defy any of you to open up a Quaran and show me the part where it says you get 72 virgins for dieing in Allah's name. That whole thing was made up by some Americans to try and get the rest of them to hate Muslims. I guess the point of my rant is that before you start throwing rocks at least make sure to move out of your glass house first. And I know what some of you are about to say to yourselves right now, and no, I'm not "Anti-American". I think that the country we have is something very unique and special. But that doesn't mean that I always think we're right, or good, or just. Remember the Native Americans? What did we do to them? How about the Japanease during World War Two? I mean, we weren't killing them like the Nazi's did to the Jews, but we still locked them up for being the race that they were. And to try and portray us as anything else than what we are, well, I think that that makes you the Anti-American, not me. Patriotism isn't just a word you slap on a bumper sticker. Spazik007 01:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that both "sides" of this POV tend to complain that this article is POV in the other direction tells me we're doing something right :). Read the intro again: "Whether sentiment hostile to United States reflects reasoned evaluation of specific policies and administrations, rather than a truly prejudiced belief system, is a further complication." We are acknowledging the ambiguities here. What I think needs to happen is for the body to more carefully reflect the balance of the first two sections. There are still problems to be sure. Marskell 08:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Too many pictures?
Does anyone else think this article is a little heavy on its' use of images? The first image (cover of Anti-Americanism) should definately stay, though I think another five pictures after that (at time of typing this) is a bit excessive and only serves to screw up the formatting. In my opinion the Nazi propaganda poster should also stay (due to its' relative fame) along with one other. Edders 16:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, I made a minor edit to the propaganda poster to hopefully better reflect the most relevent themes it utilizes. Edders 16:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Lengthy Mid East section
The para beginning "the Pew research institute probed more deeply the stereotypes of Westerners in the Middle east" is tangential and should, I think, be abbreviated to a sentence or rm'ed. Marskell 08:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I plan to expand it. It is essential to anti-americanism to understand the negative stereotypes. Stereotyping is a form of prejudice and prejudice is of course the defining aspect of anti-americanism. Prejudice is what underlies the assumption of the worst when given partial or inconclusive informaiton. Prejudice is what makes people (esp. in the middle east) disposed to believing propagnada and conspiracy over reports from reliable US institutions such as free media. Mrdthree 08:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, but tangents are tangents, and Wiki articles need to be summary style. The para deals with Anti-western attitudes, not AA attitudes specifically. Marskell 09:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * THere are tangents and there are secants. Mrdthree 09:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that the article is devoted to causes. I think that polling data should be grouped into a new subsection about regional distribution of Anti-american sentiment. Mrdthree 17:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the polling data concerning the preceived cultural attributes of Americans is very telling of ME attitudes, but I don't understand the importance of the religious poll results in an anti-American article. "Jews" and "Christians" are not unique to the US. Sugplumxx 10:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro
I reorganized the intro so that it would summarize content rather than argue it. what was your issue with the intro? Mrdthree 08:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC):

Contemporary anti-American positions range from opposition to the foreign policy of the United States government, opposition to the economic policies of the United States, opposition to American popular culture, and opposition to globalization and the dominant role of American interests. Increases in global anti-American attitudes appear to correlate with particular policies such as the Vietnam war or Iraq war , One may also believe that Anti-Americanism is a by-product of anger, jealousy, and envy generated by anyone who doesn't posses the same quality of life as the general United States public enjoys (per captia GDP). Logically, this would include less fortunate people also living in the United States. (see also *International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April 2006 )
 * Anti-Americanism, often Anti-American sentiment, refers to a broad range of attitudes and actions opposed or hostile to the government, culture, or people of the United States. Anti-Americanism has been described as a belief that configures the United States and the American way of life as threatening at their core .However, it has also been suggested that Anti-Americanism cannot be isolated as a consistent phenomenon and that the term merely signifies a rough composite of stereotypes, prejudices and criticisms towards Americans or the United States . Interpretations of anti-Americanism have often been polarized, with heated cold war era exchanges charging that the term is propaganda coupled to counter charges that criticism of the term is propaganda . As a result, a central issue in understanding Anti-Americanism is distinguishing sentiment hostile to the United States that is a result of balanced and reasoned evaluation of specific policies and administrations from hostile sentiment that is a result of prejudiced, manufactured, or unbalanced criticism of the United States using principles that take a blind eye to or cannot be applied to the actions of other states and organizations.


 * Too long, partly incoherent, and filled with unneeded adjectives. POV at end.

Marskell 09:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll take another look at it. Mrdthree 09:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I don't see that the intro needs work. The only real addition above is "anger, jealousy, and envy" which is POV and simplistic. Anger over policies? We've got that and don't need to repeat it. But the envy bit is hard to quantify and often not borne out—the standard of living amongst nationals in Arab Gulf States, for instance, is in many ways superior to that of the average American.


 * The main thing that needs doing here is sourcing the history. Marskell 10:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the intro spends too much time arguing the legitimacy of the term and not enough time describing the content of the article. I think objections to the term should be discussed in the body in its own section and a consensus definition and overview of issues should be given in the intro. I also think the article should document recent trends in anti-american sentiment (is that too journalistic?) and provide contemporary and relevant examples of anti-american stereotypes and myths and be more integrated with the regional anti-americanism pages. Mrdthree 16:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem Mrd, is that attempting to describe "recent trends" typically deginerates into an anti-Bush rant and suffers from the "if this, why not that problem"--what example is sufficiently clear and obvious that it belongs in the intro? Vietnam and Iraq were chosen because of their breadth. I actually like the intro because it's fairly well-packed with scholarship, and the scholarship seems often to be about the legitimacy of the term. Though maybe it's not perfectly on-target with the body. Perhaps a sentence on geography over time: the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries = Europe, the twenthieth = global, with perhaps a mention of the mid-east. Marskell 09:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination comments
It isn't realistic to nominate an article for GA while a section has a template for lack of citations. Someone with Photoshop ought to crop and correct the histogram on an underexposed image of protesters. Also, while the topic of the article is anti-Americanism, it's rather bad taste to show a burning American flag at the very top of the article - not the sort of image very likely to attract further reading by Americans who might wish to understand and correct the problems that lead to anti-American sentiment. Compare to the leading images at Islamophobia and Anti-Bosniak sentiment. Since the article here is not about the particular book whose cover image is depicted, the fair use copyright claim is shaky.

Also, in terms of balance, this article lacks examples of individual Americans who suffered due to prejudices against their country. Compare to Russophobia. While violence directed against American civilians due to their nationality has certainly been less severe, the article should mention the Iran hostage crisis and 9/11 as well as a sampling of other acts such as the murder of wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer during the Achille Lauro hijacking. A fair treatment of this topic ought to acknowledge that the United States is not monolithic - individual Americans do not necessarily agree with the practices of their government. I recuse myself from making any decision on this nomination because my nearest relative was one of the last people to escape from the World Trade Center alive. Durova 23:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the photo is perfect actually, as it catches one visually and shows the most obvious example of AA expression. Is there any more common symbol of the phenomenon than flag burning?—the act itself may be bad taste; our showing it is not. (Though you may have a point about the fair use claim.)


 * "The problems that lead to Anti-American sentiment." No, no, no. Again, all this leads to is anti-Bush tirades or laundry lists of what people don't like about America. We must document the phenomenon as it exists first and foremost (i.e., expression as opposed to putative cause). Of course discussing what will include some discussion of why, and I don't think this is totally absent here. I would also say Wikipedia is not in the business of correcting anyone's behaviour; it should document, not agitate.


 * Anyhow, the article can certainly be filled out, but after a year-and-a-half of watching it that needs to proceed slowly to avoid the inevitable shitstorms. As for the GA nomination, I'm indifferent as I don't see much use in that process; this article probably isn't up to standard in any case, as you note. Marskell 10:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "The problems that lead to Anti-American sentiment." No, no, no. This takes my statement out of context. Perhaps I should clarify the point: to many Americans, one of the most offensive acts possible is to burn the flag.  The article on Islamophobia doesn't begin with a reproduction of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy.  Instead it starts with a rally against Islamophobia and closes with an image of the "Stop the hate" campaign by the Islamic Political Party of America.  None of the images here challenge Anti-Americanism, nor does the text compensate for that imbalance.  This is an NPOV issue. Durova 13:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The burning-flag picture is a powerful one, and neatly encapsulates the concept of anti-Americanism. I think it should stay. We can get too hung up on whether people are offended or not. Raymond Arritt 01:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It encapsulates one part of anti-Americanism, namely the POV that it is not based on "reasoned evaluation of specific policies and administrations". It also suggests that the strong aggressive feelings sometimes expressed are representative of the phenomenon. I think it is somewhat of an exaggeration of at least the contemporary situation. In my opinion, the "Anti-American mural" picture would be a better choice at the beginning of the article, and flag-burning could be shown where extreme attitudes are explained in detail. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 12:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As an afterthought, the picture is particularly unrepresentative if it is also intended to illustrate what is typically criticized as being "anti-American", as the term is mostly used of much less heated forms of expression than flag-burning. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 12:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This article doesn't seem to acknowledge the usage of the term to refer to Americans who are thought to have rejected perceived American core values, in the manner of the term "UnAmerican". Here is an example of that usage from the media,
 * "the Democratic Party has had this McGovernite, anti-war, anti-American wing that pops up every once in a while"
 * Here is another
 * "media pundits are attempting to define what it means for a U.S. citizen to be anti-American, in an effort to slow down the opposition to the war against Iraq."
 * I maybe wrong but at present the article only refers to international disagreement with practices of the U.S. Though the introduction and early sections are OK - the latter part of the article appears to want to own the term "anti-American" and run with it, claiming that opposition to certain U.S. practices is inherently "anti-American". That is not the case, nor the job of us to label it so.--Zleitzen 11:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Groups currently described as Anti-American are highly diverse, including French intellectuals, Islamist fundamentalists, Latin American populists, and even Americans themselves (within the United States the term "un-American" is as likely to be used)" is the closest we have regarding first. Re second, that is the longest-running outstanding debate here. Marskell 11:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't spot the "Un-American" caveat at first reading, which maybe is a good reason to expand that area within the article. The second point, the long-standing debate, has to me been unresolved judging by the latter part of the article. The article still attributes sentiments of "anti-Americanism" to subjects where this is surely in dispute. For instance our article says;
 * "The Vietnam War boosted anti-American sentiment: here, American critics felt, was naked imperialism at its worst"
 * This (unsourced) sentence is referring to American critics who felt that the war was "imperialism at its worst". No more, no less. It is original research for us to attribute that to "anti-Americanism". That is, as I offer earlier, an example of this article owning the term "anti-American" and running with it. It was the key reason why I forwarded the "anti-Americanism in various countries" to be deleted, which it duly was.--Zleitzen 11:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Arrogance
May i suggest adding a section on american arrogance towards others and superiority complex, also an inability to admit to any wrong doing. Such as the killing of British soldiers in Iraq, and then denying it happened. People tend to become Anti-American for these reasons. J. Quinn 20th September 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.111.213.247 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also because the american's are narrow minded and really unintelligent :-) --Frogsprog 14:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC) (but yes the killing of our soldiers is an outrage --Frogsprog 14:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC))


 * No, we should not add such a section. Save blog posts for blogs. If you can source that an increase in Anti-Americanism, outside of the usual in a given country, has occured because of some incident or other perhaps there's place for it. Marskell 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Marksell is one of those canadian traitors who likes the US better than his own country because he likes the idea of a country where anyone can have a gun and get as much power as they want.. never mind --Frogsprog 14:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Frog. Usually I'm not pedantic, but I find your repeated comments unhelpful in the extreme and am going to report this on the admin noticeboard. Marskell 15:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Warned user. Marskell 15:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the majority of Frogs comments and additions are unnecessary and question the value of Frogs contributions at this site. Mrdthree 02:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda thesis
In the lead, the article states:
 * The propaganda thesis has itself been challenged as a form of Anti-Americanism[7] that seeks to frame the consequences of difficult US policy choices as evidence of a specifically American moral failure, as opposed to what may be unavoidable failures of a complicated foreign policy that comes with superpower status.[8]

I don't understand what this sentence is implying. I presume that it is referring to works such as Chomsky's Propaganda model in general, rather than a specific propaganda thesis of the term "anti-Americanism", which makes no reference to "American moral failure". I can't imagine why anyone would view the "anti-American"/propaganda thesis as an attempt to describe "American moral failure". This appears to be a mix up. Also, the references do not clarify this and thus I am none the wiser. Can anyone explain what I am missing?--Zleitzen 16:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You might ask User:Cultural Freedom who added it (though he doesn't seem to edit much). The book source requires a page number and ideally a direct quote. Marskell 17:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that should go - I don't believe that it is correctly interpreted. There is the term "anti-American" - then a critique of the term (ie. the propaganda thesis) - I am unconvinced that the sentence above constitutes a critique of the critique of the term. I think someone has got muddled up in all the critiques and has drifted off topic. --Zleitzen 17:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The sentence makes sense only when read in the context of the preceding material and has to be parsed very carefully. The point it tries to make is legitimate but not all that important. Given that the point is marginal and is expressed obscurely, I favor deleting it.  We can revisit the issue if someone comes up with a clearer way of presenting the concept. Raymond Arritt 19:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's going then I'm not too concerned, Raymond, but one question - you say the point is legitimate, but could you clarify yourself what that point is? --Zleitzen 19:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to answer for Raymond, but I think the point is "scrutiny of standard." Very crudely, the United States acts selfishly—as has, essentially, every nation-station (or pre-national polity) in history. In the case of the contemporary United States, its decisions are magnified given its global role. Thus people "hate" the United States because of Iraq but could not, say, identify Darfur or Chechnya on a map, where state-sponsored (or at least state-allowed) slaughter is greater (perhaps they can't find Iraq either--it just becomes a trope to criticize the US). Step two, after focusing on the American devil while ignoring others, is treating the devilishness as specific to Americans. And then you just wind up with crude bigotries as often as not. Above on this talk, for instance, "american's are narrow minded and really unintelligent :-)". Great point.


 * The danger in analyzing the critique this way, however, is a type of naturalistic fallacy where, say, the rapacious Caesar or Khan of history somehow justifies contemporary American actions. Not so—I only mean that the addition might be defended as an introductory point of debate for this article. I was neither here nor there about it originally, but compromised with Cultural Freedom to let it in. Do leave a note on his talk if you remove it. Marskell 21:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I don't think either of you got my drift. Basically, the critique offered on the page opposing the valid, much-covered-elsewhere theory that the term "anti-American" is used as a propaganda tool was crap. Made no sense in the context. And had no valid citations. So I removed it! It was arguing against some strawman "anti-americans", not the propaganda theory. --Zleitzen 22:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm, well I'm sorry too--you shouldn't respond to good faith answers with declarations of how right you are. Anyhow, gone. As suggested--leave a talk note. Marskell 22:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Pardon me? I understand where your last comment came from even less than I understood any of the previous comments. We appear to be on completely different wavelengths, Marskell. I was clarifying my problems with a sentence on the page in plainer English - seeing as my previous comments were apparently misunderstood. That is all. --Zleitzen 22:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hang on, I thought the first paragraph was an anon unsigned comment and that two users had replied, the second being you. Maybe a source for the misunderstanding.--Zleitzen 22:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The two para's were myself, with a point and counter-point (the first partly playing a devil's advocate). Your last post to Raymond seemed to invite an open-ended reply, so I provided one. Marskell 23:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (Second attempt at reply now I've re-read Marskell's response as one piece): I understand the arguments you have put forward as a general response to perceived "anti-Americanism" and they are clearer now, my confusion stemmed from how this related to the Propaganda theory. The article said that it had been challenged by such an argument - but it seems that it didn't actually address the propaganda theory, it was referring to something else. Sorry for the confusion.--Zleitzen 00:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if I could answer for myself this time... ;-) Marskell's assessment wasn't quite what I had in mind.  That, in itself, is important.  The writing is so obscure that it leaves some readers puzzled, while some others who think they understand it draw divergent conclusions.
 * My interpretation may be better illustrated by the parallel term of anti-semitism, where the phenomenon I have in mind is much more common. There are those who claim that charges of anti-semitism are merely a way of short-circuiting criticism of Israel (see e.g., various Guardian columnists), to the point that in some quarters accusing someone of anti-semitism is felt to be equally objectionable as actually holding anti-semitic views. As a result, legitimate complaints of anti-semitism may be dismissed. Replace "anti-semitism" with "anti-Americanism" to obtain my decoding of the sentence in question.  I haven't seen much evidence that this phenomenon has a significant part in the debate over anti-Americanism (in contrast to anti-semitism); taking its apparent lack of importance with the obscurity of the wording leads me to the conclusion that the material is best left out. Raymond Arritt 00:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Raymond. Indeed if such a convoluted critique feedback concerning Anti-Americanism exists - it is surely such a minority phenomenon as to be not worth carrying in the lead.--Zleitzen 00:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There were two clauses there "...itself a form of propaganda" and "...a specifically American moral failure", the conflating of which may have been the root of confusion. To shift gears slightly, Josef Joffee defines Anti-Americanism as:
 * reducing Americans to stereotypes;
 * believing the United States to have an irremediably evil nature;
 * ascribing to the US a vast conspiratorial power aimed at utterly dominating the globe;
 * holding the United States responsible for all evils in the world;
 * and seeking to limit the US by destroying it or cutting oneself of from its polluting influence
 * It was this type of demonization that I believe the second clause "...specifically American..." was suggesting, but it was roped into a counter-point of the propaganda model, which didn't make sense.
 * Two simpler sentences:
 * "The propaganda model has been criticized for a counter-vailing tendency to deny legitimate complaints of anti-American stereotyping," i.e., Criticism of the US = Anti-Americanism = short-circuiting criticism; but, Anti-Americanism = propaganda = ignoring real bigotry. If it can be sourced.
 * "One suggested anti-American pattern is the description of evil or selfish tendencies as specifically American characteristics and world problems as specifically American failures;" or something like that, as a separate point. Marskell 09:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your two-sentence version is very clear. (I especially like the first sentence.) Appropriately referenced, this would be a good addition to the header. Raymond Arritt 12:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be interested to read a citation for the first sentence if such a view had in fact been forwarded, Raymond. The second sentence is a fairly familiar generalisation and deserves coverage on the page, providing that the accuser is named and referenced and the accused are clearly defined. Is this an accusation aimed at Western leftist writers? Latin American groundswell opinion? or the South African parliament? etc... etc... --Zleitzen 13:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Re second, accuser: Josef Joffe, with agreement (in a review) from Walter Russell Mead. Accused, broadly, Middle Eastern publics with individual references to various other countries. I have a Foreign Affairs source sitting beside me and I'm sure a search would turn up others.


 * As for the first, it can probably tracked down. There was a source after all; the person who added it wasn't fibbing as near as I can tell. Marskell 18:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * On the first sentence, my comment was on clarity of expression and not necessarily on substance. As noted earlier my perception is that the idea behind the first sentence is not a substantial part of the phenomenon of anti-Americanism.  But if the idea can be verifiably sourced, my perception is irrelevant. Raymond Arritt 01:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction
Scanning the talk page above I see a proposal for the introduction that includes the sentence;
 * In popular practice, a disparate variety of actions and attitudes critical of the United States have been labeled anti-Americanism, including hostility toward its government and culture.

I believe that the introduction should include, and be centred, around that sentence. In keeping with other introductions of disputed terms on Wikipedia. Labeled is the key word here and would set the tone for the article. We are discussing behaviour that has been labeled anti-American rather than discussing a bunch of people in Liverpool booing Condi Rice for her foreign policy, and other such people who have never been labeled Anti-American to our knowledge. In the article, we want to know who is being labeled anti-American, where, and most importantly - who is doing the labelling. Does anyone have any more thoughts as to whether this should be placed in the intro? --Zleitzen 21:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the lead should very much be in the manner of the introduction to the Evil page. The first sentence is the same as our article - but it is the second sentence where I believe our article sets the wrong tone. On the evil page is states "Evil is sometimes defined as...". Our article states "Contemporary anti-Americanism typically focuses on..." meaning that we are taking a disputed term and running with it. An equivalent would be "Contemporary evil can be found in...". I believe it should read "''In popular practice, a disparate variety of actions and attitudes critical of the United States have been labeled anti-Americanism. Contemporary examples typically focus on international opposition to United States policy, though historically the term has been applied to more varied concepts". --Zleitzen 13:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "It has been described as a belief[1] that configures the United States and the American way of life as threatening at their core.[2]"   Personally I think this is rubbish. It doesn't matter if you can find something vaguely to support it from the internet-- most people in the world are embracing the american way of life while decrying the foreign policy.  This passage from the article simply isn't true enough to be in the introduction, claiming to worldwide importance.Dan Carkner 13:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Here we go. Option two: blank the page because we'll never have agreement. Marskell 18:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't agree with Dan Carkner re:statement concerning the page. If it is sourced and correctly attributed, which I believe it is, then there is no issue. Anti-Americanism has been described as a "belief that the United States and the American way of life is threatening" and similar by significant sources beyond the ones provided on the page. I'm also confident that most people (outside the US) know of someone who shares that belief. It was a common feeling in Europe after the war, alongside a general fear of modernity. Marskell, do you have any thoughts about my proposal for inserting that sentence in the lead. --Zleitzen 19:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd be concerned that we're subtly siding with one half of a difficult debate. Labelled seems to denigrate the applicability of the term and shouldn't be in the first sentence; a consistent pattern on this talk has been an attempt by various to over-analyze the term to the point that the phenomenon can be dismissed. (Paraphrasing Sartre, from Revel: "Anti-Americanism? I don't know what that means.") I'm in favour of relatively didactic first sentences: a) it is a bigotry b) it has a name. I added "the broad range" bit once upon a time per the concern the term is thrown about so often. Perhaps:


 * "Anti-Americanism, often Anti-American sentiment, is a prejudice toward the government, culture, or people of the United States." What it IS. "In practice, a broad range of attitudes and actions hostile or opposed to the United States are labeled Anti-Americanism." How it's used. Marskell 10:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That is pretty much what I've done (see the page). Though I believe it should be "refers to a prejudice...". Even though I never normally warm to the "refers to.." introductions in wikipedia, in this case I don't believe we should tell readers what the definition of a disputed term is, we should show readers how a term is applied as much as possible. If Satre and Chomsky don't know what that term means, there is no reason why we should jump the gun and own the definition ourselves. Other than that, your two sentences are fine by me. --Zleitzen 11:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * But now there's redundancy. "Actions and attitudes" twice. The dispute, I would suggest, is not that people can be predjudiced against America but rather whether non-prejudicial stances are swept into the definition. I think "is a prejudice" is fine. Marskell 12:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your version of the paragraph now on the page is spot on, Marskell, or as close as. Next, lower down the introduction the article states "Increases in global anti-American attitudes appear to correlate with particular policies". Now this is sourced to a perception from a particular writer, Peter W. Rodman. Though the piece is titled "The World's Resentment - anti-Americanism" the writer doesn't elaborate on the term itself, he discusses international diplomacy, policy and perceptions of US unilateralism. I don't believe that Peter W. Rodman owns the defintion of the word "anti-Americanism". Certainly not to the extent where he can attribute it to other parties, and thus make his perceptions unquestionably true. I think it should read Increases in perceived global anti-American attitudes appear to correlate with particular policies, or something similar. Any thoughts?--Zleitzen 12:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Studies such as the Pew Global Attitudes polls have shown a marked increase in negative views of America after the Iraq war began. I'm not aware of any poll that directly asks the question "are you anti-American?" But the questions are posed in terms of "negative views of America" (or occasionally "Americans"), not disagreement with Bush or specific policies.  There may be other studies out there that gauge anti-American sentiment by looking at press reports, demonstrations, and so on. Have to admit I'm a science geek and a bit out of my element here... Raymond Arritt 14:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, if the concern is only one fellow saying so I'm sure we can use Pew or something else to back it up. Note the sentence says "appears to..." so there is a qualification. And note the second princeton reference, which is quite good. Marskell 16:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The "appears to" qualification refers more to the studies themselves, it still reads as though "anti-Americanism" is a non-disputed defintion. In this case "anti-Americansim" is assumed to be opposition to US foreign policy and unilateralism without qualification. --Zleitzen 10:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

We ain't like that
I have tried to counter all the bias that this article has against our nation. But some people keep reverting my edits. Please, let's discuss it here first, so we won't have to edit the article a hundred times every minute.

I believe that this article is biased against the truth and I want to have a healthy balance. I want people to know that yes, there are some folks out there who don't like us, but they are wrong. America isn't the way this article descibes it. Please, give your piece of mind on here before editing again. Thanks, (LonghornJohnny 18:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC))
 * Cite some examples of what America has not done that is stated in this article. Gdo01 18:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I never said that everything is right what we do/did. However, the article is a summary of all the bad things that happened and it puts the US on the spot for it. So I figured I would add some good things that we also did, but it's not mentioned anywhere in the article. (LonghornJohnny 18:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC))


 * actually, you are adding commentary, as per my warning on your talk page User talk:LonghornJohnny, it will be reverted as vandalism each time you add it --Frogsprog 18:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In the first place...America is the continent, right? How do you expect an article to be fair and honest by your viewpoint when probably you're the most biased one and don't even know it?--WagSF 14:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 23, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: The prose is extremely good. This is my fourth review, and umpteenth article read, but I think this article may have some of the best writing I have seen.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Everything seems accurate, as far as I know. There is, however, a serious problem with citations.  Most sections include ample (and well-formatted) citations.  However, certain sections that make fairly broad statements are not sourced.  Some quotes have only an author listed, but no information about which publication the author made such a statement.  That's a big problem, and it's the main reason the nomination failed.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: The article is very thorough, and hits on most important points. The only exception is when it comes to the causes of anti-Americanism (see below).
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: In the course of my review, I read through the comments on the nomination above. Here is the second big problem with the article: it paints anti-Americanism as unjustified, even going as far as to compare it to anti-Semitism.  The article needs to include the motivations behind the French intellectuals, Islamist fundamentalists, South Korean students, Latin American populists, and even Americans themselves who are "anti-American" and provide each group's stated rationale for this sentiment.
 * 5. Article stability? Not stable at all. There appears to be controversy over whether the nomination was a good idea, so I'm not surprised that many continue to make significant edits.
 * 6. Images?: Images are all good, and appropriate. The burning flag is probably the easiest-to-recognize symbol of anti-American protest in the world today, so it's inclusion is fine.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far.--Tjss(Talk) 21:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your analysis; hopefully this is on a couple of more watchlists. I have removed the GA "failed" tag, however. I think GA is an incoherent process and don't believe the pass/fail really amounts to much beyond tag clutter at the top of talk. Again though, if more people are looking at it, that's good. The history still needs sourcing, particularly. Marskell 21:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see someone put the tag back on. I have no dog in the fight over this article, but it was nominated, and the decision must be reflected on the talk page according to Wikipedia policy.  --Tjss(Talk) 03:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no policy that applies to GA, AFAIK. If you know of one, I'd be curious. Marskell 05:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The policy is implied by the GA review process. A review was requested, and the review requires that the decision be posted and justified on the talk page.  This informs other editors about the article's current quality status, and advises them during future attempts to gain GA promotion.  Simply not believing in the process--calling it "incoherent"--is not reason for removal.  If you disagree with a decision, the tag gives a link for review.  --Tjss(Talk) 14:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That policy is implied by the process in this case is a debatable point. Policy is implied for our FA process, because they appear on our main page, WikiMedia has produced a press release regarding them, etc. GA, by contrast, is a process that many don't like and that has not been properly integrated with FA. Marskell 12:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not my problem if many don't like it. It is an official Wikipedia process.  --Tjss(Talk) 23:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, reduced to the basics: no, it's not (an official Wikipedia process). Point to the page where I should deduce otherwise and I'll change my stance. There is nothing "official" about GA. Marskell 23:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is absurd. It is a process, consensually-developed and in the Wikipedia namespace, that has recognized standards.  All other policy has been developed and modified in that same way.  If you don't agree, I don't care.  Looking at this talk page I see you seem to enjoy arguing with everyone here, so I will give you more time to do that by not responding further. --Tjss(Talk) 15:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Re arguing: you should see the archives! Anyhow, I consider these "official". It's a fair position. Marskell 16:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see someone put the tag back on. I agree with User:Tjss statments. RWV 09:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Outlining article for restructuring
The introductory remarks are beautiful, but the intro still needs a couple sentence summary of major issues in teh body of the article. I have issues with the outline of hte article--its weak and ad hoc. Its time to do some top-down organizing and fill out an outline. Proposal idea: Mrdthree 00:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Intro
 * 1.1 Define topic
 * 1.2 List controversies
 * 1.3 List major issues coverend in body
 * 1.3.1. Causes
 * 1.3.2. Incidents
 * 1.3.3. Contemporary trends

2. Common Anti-American Views?
 * 2.1. Ideological
 * 2.1.1 Anti-capitalist senitment
 * 2.1.2.Degeneracy thesis
 * 2.1.3. Anti-technology/Romantic hostility
 * 2.2. Nationalistic and Regionalistic attitudes
 * 2.2.1. "the Other"
 * 2.2.2. Racism
 * 2.1.3 Anti-globalism
 * 2.3.Political policies and hypocrisy
 * 2.3.1. 19th century imperialism
 * 2.3.2. Cold War Foreign Policy
 * 2.3.3. Post Cold War policies
 * 2.3.3.1 Israel and the Middle East
 * 2.3.3.2 American military status

3. Historical Incidents and Cases
 * 3.1 19th century
 * 3.1.1 e.g.impressing americans by Brits
 * 3.2 Early 20th century
 * 3.2.1 e.g. WWII anti-american propaganda
 * 3.3 Post WWII century
 * 3.3.1 e.g. Anti-American terrorist incidents
 * 3.3.2. e.g. Third World Property Seizures
 * 3.3.3. e.g. Racism in China, Japan, Korea

4. Contemporary trends in Sentiment
 * 4.1 21st century issues
 * 4.1.1. e.g. Anti-American Terrorism
 * 4.2 Regional Attitudes
 * 4.2.1 Europe
 * 4.2.2 Asia
 * 4.2.3. Middle East
 * 4.2.4 Africa
 * 4.2.5 The Americas

5. References Mrdthree 00:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I see this essentially renames "History" --> "Causes". I would oppose this as the wrong slant. Should we say that "America's racial make-up caused AA in 19th century Europe" or simply "America was viewed through the eyes of European racism"? Further, it invites the POV tack-ons we see constantly here. "AA has been caused by George Bush/not signing Kyoto/the death penalty/Iraq/McDonalds/lack of gun control/talking too loud". I think we should be careful before opening the "causes" door, as we'll find ourselves commenting on something we can't answer.


 * "Incidents and cases" works for me, however. Let's come up with the best examples so it's not a rambling list.


 * As for regional attitudes, I notice Anti-Americanism in various countries has been deleted. This is too bad, as it used to absorb country specific stuff. When the list by country was here it was hard to keep it in check so I'm a little iffy. Notable regions, maybe—the Middle East and France to start? Marskell 05:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How about Sources of Anti-American Sentiment rather than causes? I havent researched cases much but it probably isnt hard. I am sure some of this will have to be outsourced to make the article small enough, but its still a sketch. Once we agree on a basic structure I figure just categorize all the text into one of the sections in the outline post it here for comment and then toss it in? Mrdthree 08:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Although I guess your point is that these are different types of anti-american sentiment and not causes? Mrdthree 08:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I resist calling it history because some of them are current rationales.Mrdthree 08:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Anti-Americanism in various countries was deleted after almost universal agreement in the afd poll and extensive lobbying by myself. It contained next to no references, was inherently POV by the title and appeared to be written with no understanding of the disputes surrounding the term. I'd argue against any attempt here to recreate the themes of that page here. Even if a source attributes an act to "anti-Americanism" by name - we shouldn't write that up as confirming evidence of "anti-Americanism". It is an allegation made by a particular source. One of the main reasons behind my reticence is that I don't believe US sources are neutral judges when deciding what is "anti-American" behaviour in Europe, Asia, the Americas etc. For example, the deleted page carried an absurd section on Cuba. I knew that every US claim that Cuba is rife with "anti-American" sentiment could be countered by a Cuban source vehemently denying this - praising America/Americans themselves - and being only hostile to specific policies of the US government. Fidel Castro himself is often cited as a high priest of "anti-Americanism" - yet the same person described the people of Harlem as his "closest friends", offered extensive aid to New Orleans which was echoed by the Cuban School of Medicine's call for "solidarity with the American people" and invariably refers to Americans as "noble people" . Notably here, our "anti-American high priest" offered this response to such allegations:
 * Our struggle is not against the American people. Perhaps no other country receives Americans with the respect and hospitality displayed by Cuba. We are men and women of ideas and not a community of bigots. In Cuba we have never cultivated hatred against the American people or blamed them for the aggressions perpetrated by the government of that country.
 * If sources are used to attribute "anti-Americanism" to subjects such as Castro, they should be dealt with in a neutral fashion and not presented as truth or fact. Because they are almost invariably in dispute.--Zleitzen 10:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking about scientific things. There are alot of polls going around asking folks in countries how they feel about the US. There are a couple polls that ask what negative stereotypes they associate with americans. Mrdthree 14:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * As an aside, a figure who should feature in this article - and someone who all those interested in this topic should read up on - is the Egyptian Sayed Qutb. Qutb spent a period of time studying in Eisenhower era America, becoming so disillusioned with the US he returned to Egypt to detail his thoughts about the US in the book "Milestones". He went on to become a central member of the Islamic Brotherhood and his book was to become a key influence on future Islamist radicals, influencing Ayman Al-Zawahiri amongst others. --Zleitzen 15:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I want to pop the text into the outline sometime today and put it here on display to see what you all think? or should I do it on the main page and let folks edit from there? Mrdthree 13:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe set up a sandbox rather than edit the page so we can see what you have in mind - I'd be very careful about any major restructuring here at this point. Looking at your outline, users may have major concerns. Always remember that we don't get to decide what is "Anti-American" behaviour. To do so is what I would consider taking a disputed term, extracting a particular definition from it, owning it and then running with it. That would be, in essence, original research. I would support keeping this article as on-topic as possible - centred and sourced around the term itself. I don't want to return here and read about how "anti-American" Cubans are supposed to be again, based on some 2+2 theorising.--Zleitzen 14:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You are starting to make me think there is something seriously wrong happening in Cuba that I should be paying attention to. But I dont have time to look into it. I am going to look into how to do the sandbox stuff.Mrdthree 18:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm, mention what doesn't belong too often and it'll wind up in the article ;). I'll try and look again at this stuff tomorrow. Marskell 23:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Flag Burning Images
I think that the flag burners jpg is there to push an agenda. I think it is a photo that was selected to evokes an emotional response. The book cover does not elicit an emotional response but makes the same statement; people burn american flags to express anti-americanism. I dont want to feel agitated everytime I go to the page. Mrdthree 17:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Mrdthree, you have been reported for violation of the 3RR rule. FWIW, both pictures elicit exactly the same response from me. You seem to want to advertise someone's book on that page. I never said that we were in the majority, but rather that you were in the minority ... don't ever put words in my mouth again.Duke53 | Talk 17:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Both pictures are of burning flags with nothing else in the images themselves - I support Duke53 here because it does feel like a book is being advertised. CloudNine 20:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Concur. Raymond Arritt 20:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record I dont own nor have I ever read the book. I just liked the image because I thought it pushed boundaries while remaining  tasteful. I think the power of the symbol of a  burning flag is muted by the text which says anti-americanism. The text objectifies the act and symbol, rather than asking the viewer to  sympathize with (or react to) the action or image  Mrdthree 05:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Mrdthree, I think you have a point about the different connotations of the two images. Though the book cover is pushing the boundaries of promotion somewhat. Do you have any alternative ideas that are less likely to cause edit conflicts? That is, if we need such a representation of a an abstract disputed term at all? I'm not convinced we do.--Zleitzen 15:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The book cover is much better in terms of substance -- it's visually striking, and more importantly it implies we're considering the phenomenon in an academic context. My preference for the other pics is based solely on concerns about promotion and copyright. If a convincing argument can be made that those are non-issues, the book picture is more suitable. Raymond Arritt 17:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've knocked up a version of the burning flag image on photoshop which hopefully conveys the message of the book image without the promotion aspects. Will that suffice?--Zleitzen 18:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What you created is a picture of fire and a picture of a flag, which is not the same as a picture of a flag burning. I'd like to see the non advertisement picture put back in place. I have a copy of a copyright free version of a man burning an American flag that we could use here (where he's seen actually burning the flag)Duke53 | Talk 19:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Pretty cool if you put that together on photoshop. Looks professional. Nice work. I am going to give myself a flag timeout and play in my sandbox. Mrdthree 22:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Chomsky
Marksell, you've removed a series of points cited to Chomsky that are key to exploring the usage of the term. You've reasoned this with "Wanders - and POV magnet". Please elaborate? --Zleitzen 15:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wanders b/c I thought the Italian example unneeded after the clearer example of Anti-Sovietism and b/c it devotes too much space to a single source. Chomsky is essentially a polemicist in this regard, after all. Because of his profile he belongs, but in terms of his training, he doesn't deserve primacy. As a further note, this section is essentially a continuation of the intro; all of the points are introduced briefly.


 * POV magnet should be obvious. People who don't like him (there are many) will do one of two things when reading it: insert ad hominem asides as had already occured ("Aytollah of Anti-Americanism") which is unencyclopedic, or think "well, I'm going to pull out a right-wing polemicist for good measure" and then we'll have a tit-for-tat structure, which is usually quite bad. Marskell 09:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You write "in terms of his training he doesn't deserve primacy". Remember that this is Chomsky we're talking about, who essentially reinvented linguistics in its modern form as academic study, is a key text in discussing propaganda and the media (I should know - I taught it for years), and is the most cited figure around the term "anti-Americanism" both in his writing and in criticisms of his writing. I'm not going to press this and I'll take the page off my watchlist. The page, which stinks at the moment in my view, will have to go without my input. I'm not interested in hearing about how unencyclopedic you think a piece of cited important exploratory detail is (I wrote the "Ayatollah of Anti-Americanism" by the way, it was clearly cited and presented in a neutral fashion), when the page carries unsourced nonsense like "Just as the United States has defined itself against Monarchical and Communist countries during its history".--Zleitzen 11:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, this is an unfortunate reply. Re first, "'dismissed with ridicule' in Rome" is less a linguistic comment and more a cultural POV. Of course, he's a fine source for definitions, and this page should definitely mention him, but I just felt the section had had due weight thrown off by explaining at length his political opinions rather than his observations on usage. Plus, the point had already been made above with the O'Conner. Which leads to two: it invites someone else to post a polarized paragraph of equal length (say, pull out the FrontPageMag) and then we'd have a somewhat polemicized section rather than a neutral description of the sources we've tracked down.


 * I did not mean to offend with "Ayatollah of...". I just thought it read like a sound-bite. Marskell 12:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Critism of Anti-Americanism?
Every good article on controversial topics has a critism section, but not this one! There are some critisms of Anti-Americanism out there, why are they kept from Wikipedia?

One critism I know of is the "snob bashing."

For example: A person writes an Anti-American story about how tough Americans "pretend" to be on the personal level. When she/he receives critismfrom Americans, she/he writes that the critism is proof of the authors claim that Americans are not as tough as they claim to be. However, people who agree with the author are lauded by the author for seeing "the truth."

Many Americans have complained to me of books, stories, hell one even told me a pornographic story (which I later read and based the example on) in which the authors claimed that if Americans responded negatively to the authors writing, it was proof the authors were right. And that when Americans did not respond, the author would either write more anti-American works, or make the claim that she/he "defeated" the americans.

The critism is that this is not a fair way to make critisms of America, its the "snob" or "childish" way to do so, and very un-scientific of emprical results are expected and very unfair to Americans.

In the case of the story above that was the example, I wrote the author saying that "it is unfair to stereotype Americans at the personal level based on little or no research other than the perceptions (the author) received from the nightly news, and (his/her) psychology class. There are strong Americans, there are weak ones. At the individual level every nationality people that would fall into both catagories." I received a email back that it was just proving the authors point that I, as an American, could not stand her writing anything bad about Americans, and that it was proof of our (she/he used "your") inner weakness.

Edited in: Scryer_360 posted that. How do you get the damn auto-sig to work?


 * For the auto sig its ~ . Right below "show changes" you'll see "sign your name" or, in the icons at the top, you'll notice one that shows the squiggles of a signature. These both do it automatically.


 * Now, "every good article on controversial topics has a critism section" is something I disagree with. Many editors are of the opinion that they are a bad idea as they invite people to post rants or personal musings rather than encyclopedic content; here is one discussion. You might also read No original research. Personal stories, such as the one you describe, can be revealing but aren't allowed here unless they've been published elsewhere.


 * Thanks for the input. Marskell 21:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would reply, but I can see that by viewing the response, those included in the conversation already believe me a dumbass, quite possibly due to being an American, as they assume I dont know the rediculous thoughts of a few editors, or that I havent read the wikipedia guidelines.Scryer_360 01:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Well this is disheartening too. Scryer, I didn't look at your contribs, but just assumed you were a brand new user because you asked about the auto-sig. My ref to the policy was meant to be helpful, not patronizing. Marskell 12:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Woah! I posted that thing above?

Eh, sorry. Did I mention im a quarter British, quarter Irish, quarter German? Quarter... something? Yah uh, I might have posted that when I was a little tipsy. Was that the night of the first post? I think that was the pub in Toronto..... yah so apology for the absolutely emo-sounding reply to your reply Mar. Scryer_360 03:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Want to introduce myself before editing this page
Hello, I would like to take a second to introduce myself. I am a student who is writing a research paper on Anti-Americanism.

I am introducing myself because this wikipage, like any good wikipage, has "vested insterests": hardworking authors who have invested a lot of time in this article to make it excellent, and want to keep it that way. User:Mrdthree outline above is wonderful.

In the next few weeks, I hope with everyones support and blessing, I am going to contribute several dozen hours to this wikipage. I want to let everyone know that although I am admitedely (and often shamefully) very biased, I firmly believe that both sides should have equal time. If you don't like me edits, please let me know.

I look forward to editing this page, and working with you all personally. Thanks to the contributions and suggestions of hundreds of wikieditors, I have written some solid research papers before. This article is already top notch, as the good article editor said above. Thanks to the work of previous editors, I already have information and ideas which I can include in my research paper.

I think we can all agree that Anti-Americanism is a vitally important subject, which has worldwide implications. I am excited and honored to be able to work with you all in building Anti-Americanism. RWV 10:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Great! Per a previous discussion on how much space we should devote to particular sources, I was thinking an "Anti-Americanism and research" or some such thing would be a section we could add. Just be careful of OR "synthesis," of course. Marskell 10:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point, I was thinking about space limitations too. Do you have the link to that discussion?


 * A recent research paper that I have begun reading has six different forms of anti-Americanism. The book is considered by one social scientist the only "serious" work on the subject of "anti-Americanism".  I would link to all this right now, but it is around 5 am in the morning here :(


 * In the article, I am impressed by the section when the term came into existance. Interesting.


 * Really good idea User:Marskell. Best wishes. RWV 10:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The convsersation is above, under "Chomsky", though it didn't turn out perfectly; I made a couple of other posts to the user's talk.


 * Re existence of the term, I think I dug that up via the intro excerpt from Revel.


 * There are various definitions, many of which have shown up on this talk at points. Rather than biting into the article, you might go to user space first to thrash out a section. I have User:Marskell/AA which I've used to edit here previously. I just blanked it, so feel free. Marskell 11:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Great idea: User:RWV/A I put your work in a template, which is on this page.  So you are the author of the section I like the most, which I mentioned yesterday.  Kruta (cool in Russian).


 * I will look at Chomsky section in detail, thank you.


 * Signed: RWV 16:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not just my work! I've added a few sources, to be sure, but there's been a massive amount of activity on this for a long long time. The first archive of this page actually has posts from Larry Sanger and Jimbo... When you have an "in research" section ready, announce it here and people can look at your user page. Marskell 18:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Outline issues
I think the outline may be overly detailed and misclassify some things but its the best I can do. Maybe someone else has better ideas about how to classify the stuff? I will put together an example item of anti-american incident. Mrdthree 16:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a little iffy at the moment. The previous structure was largely chronological and now that aspect is being shoehorned under various headings. It doesn't read right to have "degeneracy" after "anti-technology", for instance. Marskell 17:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well how about giving it a day of criticism and then reverting it back so I can see what people find essential and then rethink the outline. My thought about the chronology is that (almost?) none of the listed criticisms have disappeared. But I admit the chronology of the criticisms arising is not something I thought of when I wrote hte outline. TO me the contemporary column is just there for sake of avoiding the controversy of categorizing current criticism. Mrdthree 19:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The content has not seriously changed, so we can probably work out a compromise between the two. I'll try and have a close look in a day. Marskell 20:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Changes
Strong feelings against the United States (and at times the North American continent) have persisted since the country's original settlement, with criticisms varying greatly in content and motive.

to

''Since the United States founding, Anti-Americanism has existed in different forms and for different reasons. ''

Reason: Original statment to vague and wordy. Further, this article is not about North America, but about the US alone.

Deleted:


 * The BBC: BNP questioned over US fund-raising
 * Genocide Watch: 8 Stages of Genocide (moved to another page)
 * Covert Action in Chile 1963-1973 (moved to another page)

Reason: At first glance, has little to do with Anti-Americanism.

Signed: RWV 06:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The memory hole: The following was deleted
The following sections, information was deleted in the last edit. I do not support nor criticize this change, I am simply stating here what has been removed.

Some of this information may have been integrated into the article, during User:Mrdthree's and User:Marskell's excellent clean up:

====Criticisms of the United States====

Some of the most common criticisms of the United States involve:


 * U.S. Foreign Policy - Main article: Opposition to U.S. foreign policy.
 * American military interventions and perceived imperialism, especially in connection with 2003 invasion of Iraq and the Vietnam War
 * Selectivism in resolving various global problems (global warming, disease, wars in Africa)
 * Refusal to sign various international treaties including the Kyoto Protocol, the Ottawa Treaty on landmines, and some proposed agreements to limit the weaponization of space
 * Support for military dictatorships and totalitarian governments during and after the Cold War such as Augusto Pinochet.
 * Criticism of American economic sanctions and embargos toward various countries, including Cuba and Iran, while maintaining commercial relations with countries such as China.
 * Selective favor given to allies of the United States in international institutions, especially involving issues like proliferation


 * U.S. Domestic Policy
 * American policies which diverge from those of other developed countries, including the health care, public education, drug, and gun control policies
 * American social problems, including high rates of imprisonment and homelessness
 * The continued employment of capital punishment, or conversely excessive leniency towards criminals.
 * Claims of continued high levels of racism and discrimination in American society


 * Human Rights issues
 * American Exceptionalism regarding international institutions and international law (International Criminal Court) and post-9/11 anti-terrorism laws (see US Patriot Act)


 * Economic issues
 * Perceptions that the United States was the key inspiration for globalization and neoliberal free trade policy
 * Criticisms of the ethical behavior of certain American corporations
 * A lack of social welfare and income redistribution policies relative to other industrialized nations


 * Criticisms of national character
 * Claims of excessive patriotism or chauvinism
 * Claims of widespread ignorance of places and peoples outside of the US, and arrogance toward foreigners
 * Stereotypes of obesity and fast food diets
 * Criticisms of excessive religiosity and "Puritanism" or conversely, immorality and vulgarity
 * Claims of frequent use of crude slang or a bastardized version of English language


 * Other issues
 * Cultural imperialism through spread of the English language and American popular culture
 * Perceived lack of attention to environmental issues, including various issues related to high use of fossil fuels
 * Criticism of a lack of universal gay rights, or, conversely, excessive acceptance of alternative lifestyles.

For a more detailed breakdown of anti-American rhetoric and sentiment by country, see anti-American sentiment in various countries.

====Criticisms of anti-Americanism====

Due to the variety of motives for anti-americanism sentiment, support of this sentiment varies with context. Similarly, some motives are viewed as more or less legitimate by both Americans and non-Americans.

Some Pro-Government Americans criticise Anti-americanism on the following points:


 * Some Americans charge that anti-Americanism stems from jealousy, especially from rival powers. This is the traditional argument used to qualify Anti-Americanism in France.
 * Conversely, other forms may be attributed to up-and-coming would-be superpowers who wish to unseat the US in status. This is a view of anti-Americanism in China, and the former Soviet Union.
 * Some attribute anti-Americanism to radical Islam. By this view, the critics are viewed as objecting to women's rights and human rights, and therefore viewed as regressive or religiously fanatic. This style of anti-Americanism is considered a common motivation for countries such as Iran, and radical Islamists like Osama Bin Laden, although many anti-americanists argue that "radicalism" is simply a label attached by the Americans.
 * Some view much anti-Americanism as a left-over effect from Marxism or Communism, and anti-capitalist sentiment in general. Because the United States is a prominent capitalist country (which can be viewed as either a virtue or a fault), it is assumed to logically follow that many anti-American critics will be motivated by economic philosophies in their arguments. This is often the argument leveled against anti-globalization protesters.
 * Some critics hold consistent criticism against American policies, by the Left as well as by foreign critics. The claim often made is "damned if we do, damned if we don't". Thus American intervention in 1999 in Kosovo led to popular protests in Europe, while the UN has criticized America's non-intervention in the 1994 Rwandan genocide. According to this view, no policy by the United States can ever hope to satisfy everyone and all US actions will inevitably be interpreted and presented in a negative way.
 * Other critics of anti-Americanism claim that it is a simplistic view or over-generalization, sometimes bordering on discrimination. However, the objection often raised is that since Americans are not a race, it cannot technically be called "racism". It should be noted that early forms of anti-Americanism indeed had racist overtones, such as French naturalists' view that North American flora and fauna were biologically inferior. Stereotypes that Americans are somehow more "fat" or "stupid" than other people are sometimes criticized as prejudiced, and are often center around an assumed image of Americans as a universally WASP people.
 * Some critics draw parallels between modern anti-Americanism and the defamation campaign against European Jews during the 1920s and 30s. One example would be a controversy in Germany about a caricature depicting American investment bankers as mosquitoes with top hats, labeled "die Aussauger" (the suckers), imagery that in the view of some critics resembles a caricature depicting "the Jew" as a spider.
 * Some critics argue that anti-American criticism from the Left is sometimes in line with criticism from nationalist movements, or radical Islamists. They charge that well-meaning critics are unwittingly aiding causes that are not considered "progressive". One example would be in Japan, where both anti-American right wing groups ('uyoku') and Leftists agitate against American military bases, while only the right wing groups also agitate for a rearmament of Japan with nuclear weapons.

Signed: RWV 06:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In Fact
Refactored from the following comments.

"The memory hole: The following was deleted, ====Criticisms of the United States====" That entire portion should have been left in, because THAT is what anti-Americanism is. That's what Brits, Canadians, and others spew at Americans, fast food, obese, excessive patriotism (jingoism as the Brits like to say).

Leave it in to show people the real ignorance and trendiness of anti-Americanism, and the stereotyped, intolerant people who engage in it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sugplumxx (talk • contribs).


 * Please remember WP:NPA, please comment on the content, not on the person. Thank you. I wrote some more on User:Sugplumxx. RWV 12:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Excerpts of research paper on Anti-Americanism
As mentioned above, I am writing a paper on Anti-Americanism.

Thought I would share experts of one scholarly paper....



...MYTH #5: ANTI-AMERICANISM IS AN IMAGE PROBLEM Phrased in this way, this myth seems terribly naive to many. Bur it represents the belief held by the great bulk of U.S. policymakers and observers of US. world affairs, which is that the United States is fundamentally a force for democracy and prosperity around the world and that any disagreements between it and other countries can be resolved to the satisfaction of both. This myth grows out of the deep roots of the U.S. self-image as a Wilsonian "innocent abroad" on the world stage, and maintains that there is a false dichotomy between U.S. and foreign interests. According to the optimists and patriots who wholly buy into this myth, anti-Americanism is the result of false perceptions and misinformation...

...Seeing anti-Americanism as a mere image problem reinforces the widely held neoliberal assumption that what is good for the United States is good for the rest of the world. This simplification frees officials from the responsibility of doing anything to change the painful realities that give rise to negative images in the first place...

...To counter the anti-American hostility that spread out from the ripples of the Cuban Revolution in the 1960s. the strategy in Washington, where officials were ready to conjure up images of pathology, was to cure what CIA Director Allen Dulles called "Castro-itis" with a good old-fashioned dose of salesmanship. The highly image-conscious John F. Kennedy, for instance, actively championed a more prominent role for the USIA, which included a huge boost in anti-Castro propaganda to Latin America. He multiplied the aid budget and renamed it the Alliance for Progress, and he and wife Jackie - she a Spanish speaker and both being Catholics-made frequent, highly successful goodwill visits to Latin America. On the one hand, Kennedy's strategy worked well enough: a survey of seven Latin American nations found that. "in all seven countries--the overwhelming majority of those aware of the Alliance, [sic] also approve of it, with opposition to the program averaging 1 percent in all seven countries and indifference averaging about 3 percent." 24

On the other hand after 1959 the U.S. government admitted to almost no wrongdoing in Latin America. As Castro erased U.S. influence from Cuba by taking over U.S.-owned farms, alarm bells sounded in Havana and Washington. Expropriation was theft, U.S. landowners argued (not without some reason), and the State Department agreed. But it was more than that. Expropriation was typically irrational "Yankee-hating" because U.S. landowners had been good to Cuba. U.S. officials repeatedly argued this line to Cuban officials, who shook their heads in disbelief. Nor once did U.S. policymakers express doubts about the benefits of U.S. foreign investment to Cubans. Not once did they suggest that owners who valued their land four or five times higher than their taxable amount were greedy. And not once did they concede that maybe, just maybe, U.S. investment had been exploitative. The dialogue of the deaf that surrounded the Cuban Revolution was another reminder of the long-standing U.S. reluctance to plumb the depths of anti-U.S. discontent.

Signed RWV 08:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed unsourced statments
I have been observing this page for about two weeks. A lot of anons lately have added unsourced statements. I see a lot of problems with this page. I don't think it will be any help with my research paper, and to rewrite the page would step on the toes of those who have contributed to the page and feel they have an interest in the page.

I removed these unsourced statments, moving them to the talk page:


 * Feelings of distrust and dislike toward the United States exist to various degrees in states in Western Europe. A survey in June 2005 showed that a majority of Europeans had an unfavorable image of America; however, two-thirds of those opting for the "unfavorable" option claimed that this was due to George Bush and his political actions.


 * Great Britain, usually considered to be Americas' closest ally, has several American military bases, but since the invasion of Iraq, British people have begun to criticise America for mistreating its' allies and exploiting the military. Incidents which have further sparked criticism have been the 2003 Extradition Treaty (especially the treatment of The Enron Three and the use of British airfields to courier weapons to Israel.


 * Explicitly anti-American platforms have been adopted by leaders in the region, in part as a populist measure; this has been true in Cuba for decades and in Venezuela more recently.

I removed this statment, because in the broader idea of anti-americanism, this event is rather minor:


 * Very briefly, an Anti-American party, the British Anti-American Party was established in September 2006, but failed to expand and was soon disbanded, although a group of ex-members have set up a non-political movement against Americanization.

Signed: RWV 21:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced statments
Re:

Anti-Americanism, often Anti-American sentiment, is a prejudice against the government, culture, or people of the United States

My edit:

Anti-Americanism, often Anti-American sentiment, is opposition or hostility toward the government, culture, or people of the United States.

The first edit is unsourced. I added a the words "opposition or hostility" from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary.

Basically, there are two ways that people see Anti-Americanism, they see it as "internally" (i.e. what America is) often embraced by conservatives, or "externally" (i.e. what America does) often embraced by liberals. Some serious scholars have recently studies anti-Americanism and came up with a more complex picture: that Anti-Americanism is both. Maybe I can post some of the research papers on this soon. I already added one in the external links section.

Stating that Anti-Americanism is prejudice is an internal view point.

I find it interesting that two of the quotes in the opening sentence which I looked up, are from O'Connor, who subscribes to the "interal" view of anti-Americanism:


 * I argue that anti-Americanism is not a comprehensive or coherent belief system or ideology, but rather a series of criticisms and prejudices regarding America that have haphazardly been labelled anti-Americanism.

A better introduction would be an explanation of internal and external viewpoints, and the new research in the field. I think O'Connor has a part in this wikiarticle, but in the internal section. I don't want to squelch anyones contributions, and I want all major voices to be heard in this article.

I will add some links too some of the articles right now, and if I get around to it, I will write some of these ideas into the article. That way the article reflects scholarly research on the subject too. Signed: RWV 23:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've read the dictionaries. I don't want to revert over it, but will only recapitulate the discussion: because "hostile" and "opposed" are open to interpretation, reducing it to the simplest is simplest. Marskell 23:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope my new explanation explains this better. Thanks for your comprimise.  I owe you one.  As I have mentioned before, I am really impressed by the work you and Mrdthree  have done on this article. RWV 23:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what explanation you're referring to. "Hostile and opposed" is a re-addition, not an addition, BTW. It had read as such for eight months. Anyhow, since your stance is "no source", OK. I don't think it helpful, however, in terms of throwing off previous balance achieved. Marskell 00:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Excerpts of paper
Maybe this will explain "external" and "internal" better than I can:

PDF file

...Drawing from the rich literature on anti-Americanism, one type of factor influencing attitudes towards the United States may be described as "external." Several authors have proposed that external factors are attitudes toward the United States determined by the character of U.S. foreign policies and actions, ranging from military campaigns so the export of Hollywood movies. Other authors emphasize "internal" factors as causal agents. They argue that foreign attitudes derive from the particular psychological, cultural or political aspects of each nation. The relative importance of the classification of these two factors has become a subject of heated debate both inside and outside the United Stares, leading to the polarization of public discussion on the United States image abroad...

Signed RWV 14:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Different flag burning picture
While I like the opening photo at the moment, does anybody else think that perhaps one of people burning it at a protest may provide a bit more context and, for whatever reason, just look more encyclopedic... If you know what I mean. Cheers. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 08:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:BB RWV 18:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Farsi
Changed مرک بر آمريكا to مرگ بر آمريكا. Also, the literal translation of that is the famous 'Death to (upon) America', not 'Down with the USA' or anything as euphemistic - though the interpretation of the phrase may differ, the literal translation is pretty direct. I leave this to the discretion of other editors though. My Persian is very limited, so I may stand to be corrected. Just thought I'd mention it (forgive me for not going through the archives to check if it already had). Wouldn't hurt to mention Jalal Al-e Ahmad's term, gharbzadegi غربزدگى ("Westoxication") in the middle east section either - though the translation to "gharbzadegi" is ultimately lost in translation (and beyond my meager skills). Khirad 18:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But see, "مرگ" means more than "death" in Persian. It is much more metaphorical than that. Like, if I said "Marge Bizâns" (The death of the Byzantines) I am not speaking of a literal death, but rather their downfall. And also, it doesn't really make much sense to translate "Marg bar Komyunizm" to mean "Death to communism". It means "Down with communism". This is not a euphemism. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  02:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Dutch poster
Please note that the Dutch poster used in this article was published by the Storm magazine that belonged to a radical wing of the Dutch National_Socialist_Movement_in_the_Netherlands. Here is a description in Dutch language of the magazine Andries 06:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Header level
The article currently uses some single "=" headers, but articles aren't supposed to... AnonMoos 13:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:BB why does everyone post what should be on this page here, instead of making the changes? Travb (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Editors great revert, making this a truly encyclopedic article, and what wikipedia is not (a web blog)
I agree with the editor who deleted out the polomic from the anon. Too many people (mostly patriotic Americans?) feel that discussing anti-Americanism is anti-American. IMHO these editors are putting their head in the sand. Anti-Americanism is strong, and getting stronger. Denying its existence does not make it go away.

As I mentioned above, this article is slanted to what scholars call the "internal view" that Anti-Americanism is, to be very simplistic, "everyone elses fault". I see this bias in some of the comments of some of the editors above also.

Does this mean I am unbiased? No. I gravitate to the "external view", that people hate america for what it does. This does not mean that the internal view does not have merit, it definetly does.

I just argue that if this article is to be a truly encyclopedic article, then wikieditors on this article will have to write in a less biased way, using scholarly research (see the external links section which I added) with all scholarly hypothesis being equally heard. All sides should be in this article even if some editors, with those scholarly views. I argue that even if most editors disagree with these scholarly views, these scholarly views should be in the article.

I would change the article myself, but the subject simply does not interest me enough to spend the hours changing it, which would be required...So, like the editors above, I will rant here, which is must easier. :)

Further, lets all keep in mind that wikipedia is not a web blog. New editors are the most guilty of going off on long polemics like the anon did. This is understandable, as a new editor, I used too also. I am still trying hard to curb this desire to rant....I am getting better, but I still often go off on irrelevant topics. Travb (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a web blog
I reverted the comments of several editors, because they have little to do with the article itself, except the authors own opinion, with no supporting, verifiable information.

Please see: Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site

If users don't like the way this article is written please rewrite the article, don't ask others to do it for you!

""

Please correct me if I am wrong, but none of these editors who commented here have actually contributed anything to the article itself. Please let your own biases and POV be reflected in the article, not on the talk page. WP:BB Be bold.

I am going to refactor Refactoring_talk_pages some of the comments that are actually applicable to the article itself.

Again:

Wikipedia is not a web blog.

Please see: Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site

Thanks all. RWV 11:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your reverts were out of line. In the first place, some of the comments did bear on the article. In the second place, your reverts were arbitrary: you reverted some comments, but let other stand that were just the sorts of comments you deprecate in your discussion here. If you're going to apply standards, apply them consistently. Raymond Arritt 01:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Response on your talk page User_talk:Raymond_arritt. Thanks. RWV 12:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The 'Boorish American' Stereotype
What about the fact that most people who are anti-American are so because they perceive Americans as being obnoxious and ignorant? That, I would say, is the most prevalent reason for anti-American attitudes in this world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.233.210.146 (talk • contribs).
 * Great, find a reputable source and add it to the article, otherwise it is personal opinion, and it is better to voice those personal opinions on a web blog.
 * I don't mean to bite the newbie, and I am sorry if you are offended, that is not my intention.
 * If you are truly interested in the subject, I would suggest reading some of the articles posted in the external links section. Some of the non-peer reviewed articles are good too, and less time commitment (you get out what you put in). Your answer would probably fall into the "internal" camp.  They hate us for what we are, not for what we do... Some researchers say there is no such thing as these two camps [the doctronial dissertation from Louisiana posit (theorizes) about this (I think I am using the word "posit" correctly], and they are both external and internal reasons for anti-americanism.  I agree with the external/internal idea the most, but for simplicities sake I only quote the two oposite polls. Read the articles, they are facinating.Travb (talk) 08:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No where in my last post did I ever state that anti-Americanism was a personal opinion; it is to some scale, however, an international opinion. Don't you think that the negative opinion the world holds of American individuals should be included in this article?  I daresay that the main reason many people dislike Americans as a group is not because of their fundamental opposition to American foreign policy, but rather because of the rude American tourist they met once.  I cannot back this up with statistics, but I do suggest that someone more knowledgable than me attempt to, because I am sure that this is just as prevalent as the other aspects of anti-Americanism discussed in this article.  I might also say that it is extremely ignorant for you to say that, "they hate 'us' for what we are, not for what 'we' do..." and, veteran user or not, this too is an opinion, but I am not game for a personal feud.  My suggestion is simply that the aforementioned aspect of anti-US attitudes be included in the article, because, like it or not, it is extremely prevalent and thus important.  Take it or leave it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.233.210.127 (talk • contribs).
 * Hello anon, welcome to wikipedia :), please sign your posts with ~.
 * Thanks for your great suggestions, I would suggest Google News, Google Print, or Amazon.com book reader to find the information you want to include in the article. I have found that in 99% of the time, when people post to talk pages what should happen on the actually wikipage, their comments are ignored.  WP:BB.  Best wishes, and if you have any questions about wikipedia, please let me know. RWV 12:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Biased article
"...is now defending itself against terrorism and radical Islam...". Attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan are defense?? Its an attack, for crying out out! LtDoc 14:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:BB. No one is going to change this, unless you do. RWV 12:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It can be argued and has been argued by the allies of the USA that the attack on Afghanistan was a defense against a government (Taliban) that hosted terrorists (Al Qaeda). Andries
 * "Defense against". No, you do not defend against someone, you defend from someone. These are attacks.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  21:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)