Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 26

All anti-country articles are POV
User:Life.temp declares all Wikipedia anti-country articles POV, requesting them to be deleted by proposing a new policy. here Igor Berger (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a silly proposal and I don't think it will go anywhere. There is nothing wrong with POV, either, provided all relevant POV's on the subject are given a voice appropriate to their weight within the literature--and that its described using attribution and neutral language. What is is proposing is that this is hard to do (or can't be done?!) and therefore we should not even try. Its tantamount to censoring notable topics. But the good thing is that WP is not censored. POV problem? Then fix it, don't delete whole articles.Giovanni33 (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So when the Americans set up HUAC what were they thinking of? And are we allowed to mention how Chaplin was thrown out the country for being 'un-American'? Maybe the wikipedia should create its own politically correct reality and exclude what happens out there in the real world? If there is no such thing as Anti-Americanism then the HUAC article should be expunged from the wikipedia. Colin4C (talk) 08:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether or not there is such a thing as anti-Americanism (is this being argued?), there was a notable thing called the HUAC, and an article on it is warranted. The Charlie Chaplin article doesn't mention his being thrown out of the US &mdash; AFAICT because he was not thrown out of the US. The Chaplin article quotes him as writing, "... Under these conditions I find it virtually impossible to continue my motion-picture work, and I have therefore given up my residence in the United States.", citing this page of a 1953 Time magazine article which contains a bit more info on that. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor, I would appreciate it if you didn't publicly lie about what I said. Thanks. Nowhere do I propose deleting anything. Life.temp (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith about each other. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it a bit difficult to AGF, being that the SSP & SPA is trying to influence and change Wikipedia policy here Igor Berger (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Discrimination
I am wondering why editors (Marksel in particular) are simultaneously arguing that anti-Americanism isn't notably negative while adding a sidebar that marks this article as "Part of a series on discrimination." Please give some examples of incidents of discrimination this article discusses, and then explain how calling them discriminatory is not a POV judgement of the people involved. Life.temp (talk) 12:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean, I just argued with all three of the other active editors here--Igor, Equazcion, and Marksel--and ALL of them said I was wrong to think this article is primarily about prejudice. Then Marksel adds a sidebar that says its part of a series that includes.... Racism · Sexism · Ageism Religious intolerance · Xenophobia Ableism · Adultism · Biphobia · Classism Elitism · Ephebiphobia · Gerontophobia Heightism · Heterosexism · Homophobia Lesbophobia · Lookism · Misandry Misogyny · Pediaphobia · Sizeism Transphobia Slavery · Racial profiling · Lynching Hate speech · Hate crime Genocide (examples) · Ethnocide Ethnic cleansing · Pogrom · Race war · Religious persecution · Blood libel · Paternalism Police brutality Aryanism · Hate groups · Ku Klux Klan Neo-Nazism · American Nazi Party South African National Party Supremacism Bigotry · Prejudice · Supremacism Intolerance · Tolerance · Diversity Multiculturalism · Oppression Political correctness Reverse discrimination · Eugenics Racialism

What is this article about???????? Life.temp (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing with your main point, because I pretty much agree with you, but I don't think I ever argued with you that this article wasn't about prejudice. In my mind, it shouldn't necessarily be applied as a blanket term based on our judgment, even if it's not a negative term. Of course, whether or not it's prejudice to call things anti-American is a different story -- that I may have argued with you, but that too is a judgment call, and one I don't think we as editors should be making.  Equazcion •✗/C • 12:26, 12 Apr 2008 (UTC)


 * First, I apologize for being so angry last night. I have gone through this so many times. Enormous talk chatter gets generated over the same things again and again (hence my bleh blahs).


 * This article is about what our sources describe. That's not the answer you want, but it's the best we have. It would be nice to sit down and thrash out a single definition of our own but it would be practically impossible and come out as original research. There are competing definitions. Sources do discuss AA in terms of negative opinion polls (google "PEW anti-Americanism") and simply cutting those numbers was not helpful. Do some searches and work on the section. Sources do also discuss AA in terms of protest marches, from Tehran to Korea, so there is a place for that here.


 * Some things can probably be dusted off. Josef Joffee has a five point definition, but I need to dig through back copies of Foreign Affairs to find it. O'Conner also offers up some definitions. Please, try to bring sources to the table. Marskell (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec*2)Having Anti-American idiology is not necessary being prejudice against American people. I do not like and disagree that America commited War Crimes during World War 2 in Japan by firebombing about 70 major cities before dropping 2 nuclear bombs, in the process killing almost 10 million people. That does not make me prejudice against American people. I as a Japanese person tell American people they cannot enter Japan because of what their earlier generations have done, that is being prejudice to American people. Is being anti-American must be a prerequisite to being prejudice? No! Hey I do not like American race, so I will not talk to you. That is prejudice! "One must have had discrimination against them to understand prejudice!" Why does anti-Americanism is in the descrimination project? Because Americans have been prejudice against other people, and by doing so ferment anti-American sentiments from other people against themselves. Do you see the subtilty of this matter? Life.term please stop being prejudice against this article just because you do not agree with the topic. You are discriminating against Wikipedia and its core consept of no censorship. Bombing of Tokyo in World War II

Igor Berger (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a forum for editors to judge whether certain phenomena in the world are politically correct or not. There is a vast literature on anti-Americanism which we should read and utilise here. Anti-Americanism is not a notion invented by wikipedia editors and it is not something which we need to judge. This is an encyclopedia not a place for us to voice our subjective opinions as to whether anti-Americanism or the notion of anti-Americanism should be judged as a good thing or a bad thing. Colin4C (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly, we are not censored and did not invent the term Anti-Americanism or Anti-Anything. Igor Berger (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Saying the article is about what our sources describe is not an answer at all. It just begs the question: how do we decide what is a relevant source? My question didn't concern definitions; it concerned topics. The word means many things. Which of those many things shall be our topic? To repeat a previous analogy: the word "round" means many things. Among them, a musical form and a geometric shape. Both may be discussed in the same dictionary entry, but both would not be discussed in the same encyclopedia entry. Same word, different topics. Anti-Americanism means many things. Opposition to US policy is probably too vague and broad to make a good encyclopedia topic, and is very different from hostile prejudice against American people and culture. We just need to pick a topic that is focussed, and be clear about it. Prejudice is more focussed and manageable than the entire dictionary definition, and when I first came to this article that was clearly the focus of the article.


 * Better yet, we should just follow the guidelines for "identity" and restrict application of the term to self-identified anti-Americans. These guidelines apply here perfectly...
 * Where there is doubt, aim for neutrality.
 * Some terms are considered pejorative, or have negative associations, even if they are quite commonly used. Even though people may use these terms themselves, they may not appreciate being referred to by such terms by others (for example, faggot, nigger, tranny). Note that neutral terminology is not necessarily the most common term — a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28identity%29 Life.temp (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude, your argument is polemic and it is endless. It is WP:POINT Igor Berger (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding, Life.temp. A body of literature exists that discusses this term and we must summarize it as best we can. That literature does not restrict itself to people who explicitly self-identify as anti-American and for us to do so would be decidely non-neutral—we would be arbitrating the definition. We have to live with the lack of consensus on definition, not go and decide on our own. It would also be sort of silly. We apply the term bigotry not just to people who walk around with pins saying "I am a bigot." Marskell (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Look we been discussing this per dead horse. What you are proposing will not WP:SNOW. I advice to stop before it escalets Igor Berger (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What we should be doing is talking less and, again, bringing more sources to the table. Marskell (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Who's this "we" that applies "bigot" to people? A properly neutral encyclopedia? In fact, there is an article on Bigot that describes the thing, includes sources, and does not include its editors opinions on who is a bigot and who is not. A very good example. Life.temp (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Marksel: the last major changes you have made have re-focussed this article on prejudice. You added the article to the discrimination category, and you added these aspects to the defintion: "reducing Americans to stereotypes; believing the United States to have an irremediably evil nature; ascribing to the U.S. establishment a vast conspiratorial power aimed at utterly dominating the globe; holding the United States responsible for all the evils in the world; and seeking to limit the influence of the United States by destroying it or by cutting oneself and one's society off from its polluting products and practices" (BTW I think "polluting should be in quotes here, or changed to "alleged polluting"). All of this makes the topic something very negative--like bigotry. At the same time, you are defending calling a decline in sentiment polls "anti-American" and you are calling the protests of a child rape as "anti-American." You don't get to have it both ways. If "anti-American" is a neutral description, this article doesn't belong in the discrimination series and it should not feature definitions like "holding the United States responsible for all the evils in the world". If this article is primarily about bigotry, then opinion polls about general sentiment and anger over a gang rape of a child don't qualify.
 * Again, this is a very simple and reasonable test of neutrality, and it is already part of Wikipedia policy: a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral Life.temp (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What I am doing, Life.temp, is what I have been asking you to do: bringing sources. I added a perfectly acceptable academic and attributed the definition to him in sentence. You are the one who has been shouting that we don't have any definitions. Go and find some. There's a fair-sized group—Hollander, Chomsky, Revel, Joffe, some French academics etc.—that have published specifically on the use and definition of the term.


 * If sources call a protest march or an opinion poll examples of anti-Americanism then so can we. That was and remains my position. It really isn't that hard. Marskell (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Life.temp, I really would like you to read this and maybe it can help you understand how Wikipedia works WP:EQ Igor Berger (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is wrong: "If sources call a protest march or an opinion poll examples of anti-Americanism then so can we." There are many sources calling Affirmative Action racist. We cannot. Sources can have a POV. We cannot.
 * Of course we can mention what the sources say (if they are reliable, notable, etc.) That doesn't mean we can be a mouthpiece for any source some group of editors likes.
 * You misunderstand my position. I didn't say "we don't have any definitions." I said we have too many. Life.temp (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are shifting goal posts. Of course there are bad and unreliable sources. But the International Herald Tribune and PEW Research are perfectly acceptable in policy.
 * We are going to have live with competing definitions—that's what NPOV balance demands. Marskell (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My point concerned "reliable, notable" sources, not bad ones. Good sources can have a POV, e.g. Hollander. Sources can be neutral and excellent, but belong to a point that isn't relevant to the article. I don't agree that the main job here is to find more sources. THe main job is to agree on what sources to find and how to use them. Life.temp (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Americanism
If someone feels America is not properly represented, they are more than welcome to start an article Pro-Americanism and Prejudices against America and Discrimination against America Igor Berger (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd give it a rest, heh. People are going to dissagree with this article, and they are going to edit war, etc. I say protect the page for awhile. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 03:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I think there are enough editors around now, so there will not be any systematic bias. If there is a problem again we will have to address it at that time. Igor Berger (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On pro-Americanism there are at least three books on Tony Blair's love affair with George Bush and all things Yankee. See for instance 'The Accidental American: Tony Blair and the Presidency' by James Naughtie. Now let's try this link and see if it works: Americanization. I think the trouble with America is that it set itself, courtesy of Thomas Jefferson, on such a high moral pedestal that its failures to live up to them are all the more evident. Charles Dickens said:

"The heaviest blow ever dealt at liberty will be dealt by this country [America], in the failure of its example to the earth".

Colin4C (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this page is about Anti-Americanism? If then why there is had been deleted my words? I thought Wiki is free. And I have just wrote facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArthurMongli (talk • contribs) 11:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to start a Pro-American page, but I'm gonna need some help doing it. Can any Pro-Americana give me a hand. DiveStryker 19:44, 2 October 2010 (Pacific Time)

Article's direction
It finally looks like the article is being edited NPOV to its topic. Igor Berger (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Attention Needed by established editors of this article
User:Life.temp has filed an ANI incident against me here Wikipedia:ANI#User:Igorberger_harrassment Can any user who wishes to comment on the situation, because it has resolved from Life.temp editng POV of Anti-Americanism please comment at ANI. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 12:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have filled Wikiquette_alerts which will help you understand where my conserns have stemed from with respect to this user and his editing style. Please read the Wikiquette alert to understand this complex issue. I also advice you to have a look at WP:The gray zone. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

ArthurMongli (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Gentlemen! We are in the topic titled "Anti-Americanism", aren't we? If so I am calling our respectable gentlemen stop removing unpleasant texts from the topic and be polite. Guys, also i am recommending you to increase your knowledge in history not from hollywood movies and brainwashing media but from books and truthful sources. Best regards!

ArthurMongli (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Also wikipedia is for people of all nation. Even its english variation too! If you have read carefully, in the section "Facts, events and possible reasons that might lead to Anti-Americanism" I used the word "possible".

ArthurMongli (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC) You guys should understand that Anti-Americanism is not terrosim. It is just a someone's POV like Anti-Russian, Anti-Chinese, etc.


 * Well I do not know if we should be adding 9/11 Aleged Jewish consipiracy theories into the article and saying this is Ani-American. I think each instance of an allaged act of Anti-Americanism needs to be discussed,notable, sourced, and properly referenced, because if not the article because POV and a hotbed for POV SPA BFA. So go slow wiht this, lets not have Wikidrama again! Igor Berger (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Can someone please remove that section? It's malformed, unsourced, and undiscussed. I won't go past three, although in this case I'd almost feel justified. Marskell (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's best to ask an univolved admin to look at it, no need for edit warring. And we should not be involved in reverting each other back and forth! Avoid Wikidrama Igor Berger (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ever since (the now banned) Bsharvy and his sock-puppet started ripping this article to shreds a whole host of POV editors, who freely admit they know nothing about the subject and have never read a single book or article on it, have joined in a POV vandalistic free for all. This article used to be very good. It is now a bloody mess. I have a good mind to revert the whole thing back to the excellent, referenced, article we had here two months ago. Colin4C (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel the previous version fell in the "so so" rather than "excellent" camp. It needed a good deal of work but gutting it wasn't the best way to go about it. Colin, if you revert, do note I have filled out and added references to the East Asia and Definitions and Usage sections.
 * And no Igor, I don't need an uninvolved admin. Unsourced, unformatted, and undiscussed material was added. It should be removed and I'm hoping someone else will get to it. Marskell (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Have now restored old version. It is not perfect, nothing is, but is far better than the playpen of POV axe-grinders we have had to endure for the past two months. Colin4C (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks like a real article. I do not mind working from this version. Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a constructive comment to an edit: "Restored the good version of this article - from before the uninformed axe-grinders and vandals ruined it)" Your idea of the "good version" is not shared by the other editors. Dismissing the opinions and edits of other editors as vandalism and "uninformed axe-grinders"just points the process toward warring. Regardless of whether you like them, reasons have been given and elaborated at great length for the edits that were made. You need to discuss those reasons. Marksel I am sorry I included some of your subsequent edits in the revert. It looked like they were fairly simple and can be redone. It's probably best not to edit on top of what is a likely first step in an edit war. Life.temp (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry the current version looks like shit. Definiton this definiton that, la, la, la, blah, blah , blah! Get it together and make an article, not a dictionary definion as it looks now that it have become! Igor Berger (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor the Troll
For your own good, see the subsection Igor the Troll here before wasting more time with this editor. Life.temp (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Life Temp: are you editing from Korea perchance? Colin4C (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-14 Anti-Americanism
User:Life.temp started Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-14 Anti-Americanism please address the case. Igor Berger (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverted to more stable version
Reverted to more stable version per Marskell User:Colin4C Igor Berger (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted the article to a stable version before this article started gettig slashed and abused. Please do not edit war. If you voice your opsition to revert talk about here first, but do not just go and revert without getting a consensus for it. That will be edit warring which we trying to avert. Igor Berger (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Subsequent to that version I made some edits last night. I have restored these. Marskell (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Good! Igor Berger (talk)


 * Good? Marksell restored changes lost when Igor reverted to a version from a week ago, wiping out dozens of edits to many different sections. I assume the principle that that is good doesn't apply uniquely to people agreeing with Igor. I assume the right to restore changes destroyed by Igor is held equally by all. Thus, I too will do what Marksell did: restore some edits. How could it be wrong? Life.temp (talk) 12:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Marskel inserted additional material that was missing from the revert per conversation on my talk page before I restored. Both edits were done with consenses, please assume good faith. Igor Berger (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be wrong because there's no consensus for it. Marskell (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus for your changes either. So why aren't they wrong?
 * A reversion back to a version a week old, wiping out dozens of edits, scorns the entire process. Have you actually reviewed each of the many changes that is now being reverted? Have you reviewed all the comments made here to explain each edit? Do you really know that you disagree with every single one of them? Have you, for example, checked every article in the "Peer Reviewed" list to determine whether it is actually peer reviewed? I have. Most, possible none, are actually peer-reviewed. Are you even aware of that dispute (with Igor, of course), and the edits it included that you are now wiping out?
 * This kind of thing isn't done in the interest of consensus or policy. It's done in the interest of avoiding consensus and policy. I requested "informal mediation." Life.temp (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The consesus allways was and is for the article not for mass deletion. The horse has four legs, not grew an extra one over night! Igor Berger (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you acquainted with Bsharvy perchance, Life Temp? Colin4C (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to hitch your cart to http://www.igorthetroll.com, there is a sockpuppet page just for that. Take it there. The only mass deletion was the one you and www.igorthetroll.com are defending. That is a single edit wiping out many, and there is no consensus for it. The edits you don't like were done over many days by different editors. Life.temp (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question. Are you editing this from Seoul, Korea? Colin4C (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Tags: A Korean View
Just found this bit on the Village Pump written by a user from Seoul, recommending tags!:

"I like to see the tags, because I like to know when I am reading something that isn't a consensus. They're a reminder to readers that Wikipedia is an ongoing process, and no article is ever really finished. I think that's important. Also, I started editing Wikipedia after reading it for a long time, because I thought I could address the problems in the warning tags. If you're just a reader and you see a tag for something you can fix, you think "Hey, I know about this; I can fix it" and you are prompted to become an editor. I can't say my editing is going well at the moment, but I still think the tags are a part of the "anyone can edit" spirit." Colin4C (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Peer Reviewed Articles
I've looked at every article in that list, and see no evidence that any are peer-reviewed. One of them isn't even published. Colin, you reverted my edit. What do you propose? Life.temp (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is absence of evidence, evidence of absence? Colin4C (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, yes. If somebody doesn't claim to be say, a police-officer, and displays no badge or other identifying features, it wouldn't make much sense to insist on calling him a police-officer. There is little or no evidence of life on Mars, thus, we don't have a section in the Mars article asserting: "There is life on Mars." Life.temp (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So, on your logic, as there is no evidence that the authors of the articles are not Martians are we to assume that they therefore come from the Red Planet? Are the grounds for thinking that the articles in International Studies Quarterly are not peer reviewed any greater than the grounds for thinking they are peer reviewed? I have edited several academic journals and it an invariable rule that all articles are peer reviewed - thus saving many an academic reputation I might add! Colin4C (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is proof that International Studies Quarterly is peer reviewed: http://www.isq.unt.edu/
 * Nothing about the authors not being Martians though...Colin4C (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with that article, as I pointed out here the first time I deleted the link, is that it doesn't seem to be directly related to anti-Americanism. The title is "Determinants of Arab Public Opinion on Foreign Relations." The one somewhat related reference is about the West generally: "Rather, in rejecting Hypothesis 6, we have already rejected the claim that Arab opinion is monolithically anti-Western. (A quick glance at Table 3 suffices to demonstrate that Arabs are not systematically hostile to foreign countries in general.)". However, in the interest of compromise, I'm willing to leave that article in the list. Life.temp (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the archived discussion of this topic Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive_25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Life.temp (talk • contribs) 20:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the articles in academic journals are not normally peer reviewed? Can you name one academic journal which accepts non peer reviewed articles? Colin4C (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletions
I am wondering why Life.temp has just deleted this from the article:


 * Regularly updated series of articles and commentary on Anti-Americanism in the Atlantic Review.

As the Atlantic Review addresses questions of anti-Americanism or perceived anti-Americanism it seems relevent to this article. If nobody can give me cogent reasons why it should be deleted I will restore it. Colin4C (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Even Igor agreed to it. See the discussion within the section on The White Man's Burden above Talk:Anti-Americanism. Life.temp (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just looked. There was no concensus to remove it. All we have is your assertion here that there was a concensus. What do other people here think about this? Colin4C (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The only person to object, Igor, reverted the change once, then agreed to it. The link is not to a series of articles on anti-Americanism, as described. It is to a page of search results for anti-Americanism at that Web zine. Previously, this section had a warning for having too many "indiscriminate" links or something like that. (The warning is now gone.) Plugging the title of an article into a search field at a Web zine, and then linking to the hits page seems like a good example of indiscriminate linking to me. We can't even know what the page will say at any given time. Life.temp (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You and Igor may be right. What do other people here think? Colin4C (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate Sourcing
The "North America" section is a case-study for how this article should be edited. As it stands, it says:
 * North America
 * Anti-Americanism is fairly prevalent in Canada, with frequent allegations of American athletes cheating and of being snubbed by the US administration. However, such sentiment is not limited to Canada, and allegations of Anti-Americanism are frequently made by various US politicians about those in the opposing party.

Objections. 1. It states opinion as a fact: Anti-Americanism is fairly prevalent in Canada; frequent allegation of cheating is anti-American. (It seem to me the US media is full of allegations of athletes cheating: why isn't that anti-American?) Sourcing the opinion doesn't change that problem. 2. The source is not notable. It is an opinion piece from a newspaper. 3. It is not neutral, since it labels people in a way they don't label themselves. Solutions: Delete the part about Canada. It doesn't belong in the article. If there's notable debate about whether the examples are anti-Americanism, then the debate can be described here. The part about US politicians needs to be sourced. It's much easier to include, because it doesn't constitute Wikipedia asserting anyone is anti-American. That's an important distinction. The subject can (should) be described without Wikipedia calling people anti-American. I think this reasoning applies to many of the culture-specific allegations of anti-Americanism in this article. Life.temp (talk) 09:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not the sources that have to be neutral but for us here to give a balanced selection of variously POV sources. NPOV is a policy for wikipedia editors, not for the sources themselves. Colin4C (talk) 10:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but that doesn't address the objections. Life.temp (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it does. Also your point number 2 is wrong. Notability has to do with wikipedia articles not sources of citations. If you give a reference for a statement people can judge the statement on the basis of the reference. That's how academic references work: "According to this ref so-and-so is the case". Whether something is absolutely true is unknowable, except perhaps to God. Au contraire the statement "According to this ref so-and-so is the case" can be checked to be true or not by inspecting the reference. The notability of the source can be judged by the reader. It is not for wikipedia editors to judge. Our role is not so exalted. Colin4C (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It was a stub section that said nothing relevant. I removed. Anti-Americanism is fairly prevelant in Canada (it defines Canadian identity, in part), but it should be better described if we are to include it.


 * But before proceeding further, can we run checkuser on Life.temp? I don't like discussing with this feeling of duplicity hanging over everything said. I'm quite busy for the next few days or I'd initiate one myself. Marskell (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I found the relevant policy description:
 * "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." Neutral_point_of_view. Everybody should read that section of the policy. It's what I was trying to say above. A lot of this article "asserts the opinions themselves." Example, "Anti-Americanism in some form has existed across different American presidential administrations, though its severity may wax and wane considerably depending upon particular economic or geopolitical issues." Please note that the problem with this sentence isn't solved by adding a reference. The problem is that it iasserts an opinion. It would need to be re-worded as, "According to [significant source], anti-Americanism in some form...." And there would need to be balance with the fact that few of these being labelled anti-American would accept that label for themselves. Life.temp (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's more specific policy that addresses my concern. I would only add that 1) if it is likely many people dispute that the Beatles are the greatest band, the opposite view needs to be present, and 2) anti-Americanism, as a potential pejorative about living people, requires a very high standard of neutrality.
 * "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey; or "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart," which is also verifiable as fact. In the first instance we assert a personal opinion; in the second and third instances we assert the fact that an opinion exists, by attributing it to reliable sources." Life.temp (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to say that what is classed as a 'fact' is only through someone's opinion. 'Facts' do not impinge on our consciousness with the blinding force of revelation and even if they did we would have to convince someone else that what was revealed to us is the TRUTH. Nobody knows what the true facts are about reality. Descartes, Kant and Hegel couldn't find out and even Einstein didn't know. All we can do is say e.g. "According to Einstein E = mc squared" or "According to George Bush the weapons of mass destruction are in Saddam's garden shed" and leave it to others to figure out what credit they are prepared to give to Mr Einstein or Mr Bush or whoever. Colin4C (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The policy of Wikipedia is that some things are classed as fact and some are not, and the policy is given in the link I provided above. If you want to start a nihilistic encyclopedia which recognizes nothing as fact, I will be very interested to see how it works out. Wikipedia is not such a project. Life.temp (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not nihilism. Science progresses. Newton's theory of physics was replaced by Einstein's which was replaced by quantum theory which itself is not the definitive answer. There are new discoveries being made every day in science and new philosophical theories and new definitions and new ways of analysis and new historical discoveries. If you want to start a medieval encyclopedia based on the immutable thoughts of Aristotle I would be interested to see how it turns out. Wikipedia is not such a project. Colin4C (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Colin, make an effort. Wikipedia's policy is given in the link I provided. This is the fourth time in 2 days I've referred you to an actual page that explains the policy on classifying fact/opinion and how to write about them. Life.temp (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that a fact or an opinion? Colin4C (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Case in point: the first paragraph of the Latin American section, which I removed. The first source (PBS) said nothing about anti-Americanism, and its only comment about sentiment was "For too long, Mexicans have felt that their generosity and good will towards Americans have been corresponded by abuse and perfidy from their northern neighbor." In other words, Mexicans felt affection toward Americans but thought Americans were anti-Mexican. The second source, from the Financial Times, was an opinion piece. The third source called nothing anti-American and barely mentioned sentiment at all. This whole article is like that. Life.temp (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All three sources reported facts about anti-American sentiments in Mexico, Chile and South America generally. Colin4C (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Document please. Life.temp (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * All the references are of standard form used and accepted in all other wikipedia articles. Colin4C (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You were asked to document your statement: "All three sources reported facts about anti-American sentiments." You've moved from harassment to word games. Do I need to complain about your behavior? Life.temp (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Latin American Anti-Americanism is very interesting. For a long time it was thought that Guevara and Castro were communist stooges, but we can now see with Chavez that South American Anti-Americanism has got legs of its own and is in fact a long standing historical factor 'south of the border' originating from before the Moscow Communist Experiment and now continuing afterwards. I have added some more material on this - fully referenced from widely used textbooks on South American history plus a biography of Fidel Castro. Winn's book is an up to date textbook on South American History used in universities which has elicited a chorus of praise from reviewers. Winn is Professor of Latin American History at Tufts University.Colin4C (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no evidence the Winn book says anything about anti-Americanism. It doesn't appear to be primarily a textbok, either: "companion volume to a PBS TV series." [ http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Changing-Latin-America-Caribbean/dp/0520245016 ] Regardles, a sourced opinion is still opinion and shouldn't be stated as fact. Life.temp (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Professor Peter Winn's book is used as a college textbook on South American studies and reports anti-Americanism in South as a reaction to historic attempts by the USA to assert it's hegemony over South America by military, diplomatic and financial methods. Colin4C (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. The text it references has nothing to do with hegemony. 2. A sourced opinion is still an opinion, and needs to be stated as such. 3. You haven't documented that the book says that. Life.temp (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A nonAmerican PlayGround
This article certainly has gone through changes over a year or so, little historical reference and filled with blurbs of bigotry based on current events. Most of the American editors have been run off and left happily to nonAmericans, and forever under the watchful eye of Marskell. Congrats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.197.54 (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ (Ταλκ ) 10:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Colonists
Americans are just glorified colonists who "gained" independence because we couldnt be bothered fighting anymore. :) its a JOKE  ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ (Ταλκ ) 10:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism
An example of the problems one discovers when you start turning over the rocks in this article. The article says:


 * "Fabbrini (2004) reports the American invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003 brought anti-Americanism to the surface of public debate in Europe. The reaction to U.S. unilateralism has been nourished by a complex of fears, two in particular: the presumed economic and cultural Americanization of Europe and the Americanization of the European political process. The overwhelming global power acquired by the United States in the post-Cold War era and the unilateral exercise of that power, especially after 9/11 attacks September 11, 2001 fed the anti-American sentiment contributing to its most militant manifestation."

This is plagiarized from an abstract of a book:


 * "The American invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003 brought to the surface of public debate among European elites a robust anti-Americanism. The reaction to US unilateralism has been nourished by a complex of fears. Two in particular. The first fear has to do with the presumed economic and cultural Americanization of Europe. The second fear with the Americanization of the European political process. Both fears seem unjustified to a closer logical and empirical scrutiny. However, the overwhelming global power acquired by the US in the post Cold War era, and the unilateral exercise of that power especially after September 11, 2001, fed the anti-American sentiment contributing to its most militant manifestation. Although anti-Americanism is deeply rooted in European political cultures and experiences, nevertheless its re-emergence has been greatly triggered by American foreign policy strategy.

http://www.atypon-link.com/INT/doi/abs/10.1386/ejac.23.2.79/0?cookieSet=1&journalCode=ejac

I will remove it, as I don't think consensus is required for things that can get Wikipedia sued. I hope this won't be considered a mass deletion. Life.temp (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Image: possibly deleted?
I seem to remember seeing an image on Wikipedia from a few months ago, an Anti-American poster from the second age of immigration, from Russia I believe, warning citizens against immigrating to America and showing it as an overgrown savage native-filled swampland or forest, with some sort of dilapitated wooden building in center. If anyone knows of this image or where it is, can you please help me locate it? VolatileChemical (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing (Take 683)
The section on the Middle East begins with two paragraphs--of interpretation--and not a single source:

The Middle East region has been a focal point of much anti-American sentiment in the latter decades of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, often blamed on specific U.S. policies in the region, particularly its close relationship with Israel and its stance on such matters as Sudan's civil war and Darfur. However, some argue that the real roots lay in government policy as reflected in state-directed media. By this reasoning, America is blamed for failed systems in the Middle East, as a means of re-directing internal dissent outwards, towards what Osama Bin Ladin has called "the far enemy", America, instead of at indigenous regimes.

The term Great Satan, as well as the chant "Death to America" have been in continual use in Iran since at least the Iranian revolution in 1979. The Iranian capital Tehran has many examples of anti-American murals and posters sponsored by the state; the former U.S. Embassy in the city has been decorated with a number of such murals.

I can't emphaisze this enough: It is only a mild--and inadequate--improvement to Google some of these topics, find someone expressing the opinions described above, and add those as references. Finding people who share your political interpretations and adding them as references doesn't make those interpretations fact. Presenting massive sources for one side of a debate, and virtually none for the other, doesn't make the article neutral. Sourcing is necessary but not sufficient to make an article neutral.

The above two paragraphs are subject to being deleted at any time, and my oopinion is that doing so will improve the article by improving its balance and neutrality. Life.temp (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If we have a source for individuals or groups chanting "Death to America" I don't see any NPOV issues as it is a prima facie case of explicit anti-Americanism. As a philosopher said if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck. We may not approve of anti-Americanism, but it is a fact and an article on the subject of anti-Americanism is the place to put it. If I were an American I would look on this article as useful knowledge of where to substitute a Canadian flag for an American flag on your rucksack whenever you are hitch-hiking across the world (this is what some Americans of my aquaintance do - I also have a published source for this). I've been told that Michael B. Oren's Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present, published last year is the the most scholarly book available on the roots of anti-Americanism in the Middle East. I'll see if I can get a copy to read and report back here on whether it is a valuable source for this article. Colin4C (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hey. I saw there was a pending request for a third opinion, but I'm not really sure what the issue is. Can someone explain? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The most recent discussion is Talk:Anti-Americanism. There is also an outline of objections to the article here: Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-14_Anti-Americanism. In a nutshell, this article violates a number of policies of neutrality. Interpreting something as anti-Americanism is an opinion. So, it should not be asserted as fact. This article asserts those opinions as facts. Saying, or implying, that people are anti-American is usually labeling them in a way they don't accept for themselves, so that also violates Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality. The term "anti-American" has a pejorative connotation, so it is triply non-neutral for this article to proceed by calling people anti-American. In short, the article should discuss the fact that people think such-and-such is anti-Americanism, but it should not be asserting those opinions as fact. Almost all of the section on regional attitudes does that. When I made these objections to Colin4C above, he played a word-game over the fact-opinion distinction and reverted my edits.Life.temp (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So if someone in Iran burns an American flag whilst chanting 'death to America' is than anti-American or not? When Fidel Castro in a recent speech compared the Americans to the Nazis is that anti-American or not? When Hitler declared war on the USA in 1941 was that anti-American or not? Are you saying it is not possible to be anti-American even if you declare war on the United States and kill its citizens? Is this extract from a speech by Castro in 1958 in which he states that he intends to wage war on the USA anti-American?:


 * "When this war is over a much wider and bigger war will commence for me: the war I am going to wage against them [the United States]. I am aware that this is my true destiny. We accuse the U.S. government…of selling to the Batista dictatorship the planes and bombs that have killed so many defenseless Cuban civilians. If the U.S. violates our sovereignty we will defend it with dignity…We are ready to die in defense of our people."


 * Historic anti-Americanism in a useful hermeneutic concept and explains a lot of things which are otherwise mysterious. E.g. why South America continues to oppose United States hegemony after the fall of Communist Russia. Rather than being a by-product of global communism anti-Americanism is a long standing tradition in South America. Read any text-book on South American politics and society and you will see that these facts are as plain as day.

Colin4C (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing remotely anti-American in the Castro quote: "If the US violates our sovereignty we will defend it..." Is it neutral to characterize Bush as anti-Arab? Personally, the only one of your examples I would agree with is the chanting of "Death to America." But it doesn't matter, because the point is neutrality not truth. Wikipedia policy is that you can't even call the Ku Klux Klan racist . The point is that there is no reason for an encylcopedia to interpret these things for others. You just describe the Ku Klux Klan, or the Iranian fundamentalists, in the appropriate article and let the reader decide if they are racist or anti-American, or not. That's what it means to be neutral. Life.temp (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are completely wrong in your interpretation of wikipedia policies on NPOV. The NPOV is a policy for us the editors to be neutral not a way to falsify reality or play politically correct word games. This is an encyclopedia not a spin doctor's operating room. The page you quote Words to avoid is not official policy and has currently been frozen due to an edit war there. See where it says at the top: "This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. This protection is not an endorsement of the current version." The official wikipedia policy on NPOV is stated here: Neutral point of view. Colin4C (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so, let's calm down and take another shot at it. Are we talking about any few edits in particular, such as the Castro addition in this one, or the removal here? Based on the edit history, I think the latter one is the problem. Is that right? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say NPOV is "a way to falsify reality or play politically correct word games," so you haven't addressed what I said. That, and "This is an encyclopedia not a spin doctor's operating room." is just a continuation of the personal attacks for which you've already been warned. The page I referenced gives reasons for its guidelines. Address reasons, please. The page you cited is the same page I cited a few days ago, above. That page, which we have now both cited says:
 * Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.....When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey....
 * Look familiar? It should. You read it a few days ago, and produced word-games pretending there is no difference between fact and opinion. Scroll up a few paragraphs. Are you going to be specific about how it applies to this article, now? Life.temp (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The real edit we are debating here is Colin's sweeping reversion of many edits by different editors that he made here: , with the typically hostile, warring comment: "Restored the good version of this article - from before the uninformed axe-grinders and vandals ruined it." That attitude hasn't changed. Life.temp (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please address the issues rather than launching personal attacks on me. My edit was supported by every other editor here apart from you, including Marskell who is an admin. The concensus here supported my edit. Please respect that. Colin4C (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your edit was opposed by the main person you reverted, Equazcion. The only other editor besides Marksell was Igor, now banned for disruptive trolling. Why don't you explain which part of the policy that you cited you think applies here, and how.
 * Bottom-line: Wikipedia should not go around calling people and cultural groups ant-American. Every policy cited here says so. The actual substantive attention you've given to this point? Zero. But, you've excelled at insults... "uninformed axe-grinders, vandals, politically correct, spin doctors." Life.temp (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So all the Professors of Latin American history who cite instances anti-American attitudes in Latin America are liars? The textbooks which document it are lies also? The scores of books and articles in the Bibliography about Anti-Americanism are not true? Your original research has deemed that the subject does not exist and all the Professors are wrong? Is that what you are saying? Do you think that Brendon O'Connor is talking about a non-subject in his book?: O'Connor, Brendon (ed.) (2007). Anti-Americanism: History, Causes, Themes. Greenwood Press. Where is the wikipedia policy which forbids us examining this subject? There is none. Colin4C (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say any scholar was a liar. I didn't any professors are wrong. I didn't say this is a non-subject. I didn't say Wikipedia policy forbids examining the subject. Life.temp (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You said that anti-Americanism was just the personal opinion of certain academics and doesn't exist in the real world and therefore shouldn't be talked about in the wikipedia. I have provided valuable referenced information on this subject which you have just reverted based on a highly idiosyncratic interpretation of wikipedia policy. This is a real subject about which scores of books have been written. The wikipedia does not have a policy on whether anti-Americanism is real and neither should it. Colin4C (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say it doesn't exist in the "real world." I didn't say it shouldn't be talked about on Wikipedia. Life.temp (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Re your remarks above about the Ku Klux KLan not being racist, what about Hitler? If you saw an edit in which Hitler was described as a racist would you delete it? What if an edit proclaimed that Hitler was an Anti-Semite would you strike that out and declare it is against wikipedia policy? Should there even be an Anti-Semitism article? I'd love to know your thoughts on that. Colin4C (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say the Ku Klux Klan isn't racist. Life.temp (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Okay, everyone calm down. As to the sweeping edit above: I believe that Colin's heavy revert/edit produced a page that was far superior to the one before it (this vs this). Admittedly, the edit summary on that was a bit heavy handed, but it's okay. I would say, however, that both of you need to step away from this page for awhile and come back when you've cleared your heads. At this point, you're just sniping at each other, not assuming good faith, and making increasingly hostile edits. Life.temp, you're not so innocent yourself here - this edit summary isn't all that nice. Colin, your last set of edits above are a little inflammatory, however, and you've put Life.temp on the defensive by what appears to be misreading Life's comments. Life's last two comments were purely "I didn't say" sentences, which seems to mean that you're just attacking. Calm down.

Next: the text added here. I think most of the content added isn't all that bad. The Fabbrini text has been more or less lifted directly from here, and the argument in that section is sort of a non sequitur in that believing in a 9/11 conspiracy doesn't necessarily equate to anti-Americanism per se. There's nothing in the CNN article cited there that points to the book being anti-American, and to assume so is original research. The Qutb section is okay, but I think the article in its current form introduces too much WP:WEIGHT to Hollander's piece. The Chavez section is okay too, I think.

Thoughts? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't respond to anything I said or any point I made. I didn't request a third opinion to come and say "This is OK, this is not OK." Life.temp (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Er... then what are you looking for? Do you want me to give Colin a slap on the wrists? If you've got a particular problem with a user's behavior, then a third opinion isn't what you're looking for; you should be looking at WP:WQA. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I was looking for responses to what I said about policy and this article. It's not very helpful to just say "This is OK, this is superior to this." "OK" is not an explanation of anything, and doesn't address any of the concerns I raised. Life.temp (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I reread your comment and I see you did give some reasons. But the overriding problems with all of the national sentiment section are that 1) it applies an often-pejorative term to people & cultures who do not accept it for themselves, and that is not neutral, 2) it applies a term that is an interpretation to events and cultures, but asserts that interpretation as fact. (There are also balance problems). Life.temp (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I think I'm starting to get a sense of the problem. You wrote the following above: "In short, the article should discuss the fact that people think such-and-such is anti-Americanism, but it should not be asserting those opinions as fact. Almost all of the section on regional attitudes does that." I'm having a hard time figuring out what the overlap is here. By listing the arguments of a certain people/group/whatever on this page, aren't you already passing judgment on that group? I guess I need an example of what you're looking for. Let's take chanting "Death to America" - an example on which you agreed with Colin. Would you have the article say "Group X chants 'Death to America'" and leave it at that? By mentioning them on this page, aren't you implying that Group X's actions is a form of anti-Americanism? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I'm just trying to get a sense of things. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 23:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, note that few of the examples in this article are as clearcut as chanting "Death to America." The things being labelled as anti-Americanism here are public-opinion polls showing "a decline in favorable sentiment", or a protest against an American military base after some soldiers raped a child. The people being labelled there don't accept that description of themesleves, and in the case of the polls, even the pollsters didn't characterize them as indicators of anti-Americanism. To answer your question: I would first ask why it is necessary for an encylcopedia to label anything as anti-Americanism. Why not just describe the event and let the reader decide? That is how neutral reporting is suppose to work. I think this article should be short and not be a list of everyting editors want to call anti-Americanism around the world. See the bigotry article, for example. Life.temp (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's actually an interesting point, and I'd certainly entertain the idea of a much smaller page that doesn't have specific examples. One other solution I've thought of is to only allow verifiable content; see what I wrote below to Colin. But the more I think about it, turning this page into a small definition-based page would be a really good solution. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are confusing two things:
 * 1. There are some people out there who are actual real avowed anti-Americans and who express this through their actions (e.g. like declaring war on the United States or ransacking the American Embassy), by their words (e.g. shouting "Death to America") and symbolic gestures (e.g. like burning the American flag). These people are not shy of being thought anti-American and for some it is a badge of honor and a means of political engagement. There is even anti-American art. If you are ever in Mexico City I recommend you look at a massive fresco called 'The End of American Capitalism' by Diego Rivera at the Ministry of Education. Unbelievable as it seems to you not everybody is secretly in love with the Americans.
 * 2. On the other hand there are some people who are accused of the great sin of being 'anti-American' by e.g. right-wing ideologues but who in reality are just opposed to one aspect of American policy, like the war in Iraq and do not accept the label of being anti-American. A lot of us in the UK who opposed the Iraq war were accused of this terrible sin by right-wingers who in their turn were not afraid to attempt to whip up hatred of the French for opposing the war: Anti-Gallicanism.


 * This is a complex philosophical issue which should be addressed with constructive thoughtful edits rather than bar-room pronuncimentios. Colin4C (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are my points, for the 20th time. I don't think of them as "bar-room pronuncimentios" and your stream of disparaging remarks isn't constructive. Life.temp (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a cultural bias, because people from non-English-speaking countries are underrepresented in the English Wikipedia, yet the article labels Japensese, French and many Islamic countries as anti-American. If people from those countries were equally represented, there is no way there'd be a consensus about those labels.
 * There is always a neutrality issue when people are labelled in ways they would not accept for themselves.
 * Part of the debate over the term is that it has strong pejorative connotations and is often used as propaganda. The article itself says so. Then it goes on to apply the term to many different people and countries, essentially taking the side that the term is not pejorative and not propaganda. Or maybe the idea is that it's OK for Wikipedia to describe cultures pejoratively.
 * The definition of anti-Americanism includes "objection to...policy" which is so broad it includes everybody in the world at some point. It means President Bush is being anti-American when he objects to Death with Dignity laws.
 * Many of these issues apply to all the anti-[nation] articles. I think not a single one of them is written by the people who are supposedly anti-[nation]. So I think a general policy discussion is in order. I proposed such a thing at the Village Pump but it hasn't received much attention.


 * I'm starting to fall back on that good old Wiki tradition: that of verifiability. While it may be true that all of the actions/events you mentioned above are anti-American, I don't think that we as editors can speculate on whether or not they are; to do so seems to be WP:OR. I know it seems kind of silly, but I'm starting to lean towards only including text that's from verifiable sources, such as scholars and officials who can speak to the subject. For the above examples, you'd have to find a source that mentions the Mexico City fresco and says "Yes, this is an example of anti-Americanism." However, Life.temp's suggestion above about massively shortening the article seems more and more intriguing to me. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 00:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think both massive shortening and verifiable sourcing are in order. The sources also need to be balanced, in addition to explicitly verifiable. Some examples of debate about whether something is anti-American, rather than just lists of what has been characterized as anti-American by some columnist somewhere, would be much better. Life.temp (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the Talk Page. All my contributions in the main body of the article are rigorously sourced from textbooks written by professors and lecturers at university, they are not original research. As this is the talk page I thought I would just add an anecdote about anti-American art. As you seem to doubt what I am saying in good faith here I will add a fully referenced section on Mexican anti-American art to the article shortly. If you doubt my credentials just to add that I was an editor of academic conference proceedings for several years (the Transactions of the Theoretical Roman Archeology Conference) and have organised several international academic conferences on archaeology and have had articles published in hard copy encyclopedias e.g The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Classical Civilisations. I will oppose any butchering and mass deletions of this article. This is a very good, well sourced article which obeys all the wikipedia requirements for verifiability. There are several editors here making constructive contributions: we are not bound to follow Life.temps personal POV original research agenda of mass deletions of relevent, referenced material. The authorities on what constitutes Anti-Americanism are the scores of books and articles on the subject not the off the cuff lubrications of wikipedia editors who seem not to have read a single one of these books and have no expertise in the subject at all just a personal POV which they want to force all other wikipedia editors to obey. IMHO making a constructive contribution to an article is more praiseworthy than making massive deletions based on a personal POV agenda which none of the other long-standing editors here share. Colin4C (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure which other "long-standing" editors you're talking about; as far as I can tell, it's just you and Life.temp. No one else has chimed in on this argument at all, though I left A(omega) a message, so hopefully they'll chime in. I'd remind you of WP:OWN - while your contributions here are most certainly appreciated, and you've built this page up a whole lot, there's nothing wrong with discussing the potential to trim down this article. I'd like some other outside editors to chime in on such an action, though. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So you believe that everything possible can be said about anti-Americanism in a couple of pages even though there are whole books on the subject of 200+ pages or more, such as Barry Rubin and Judith Colp (2004). Hating America: A History (Oxford University Press) (336 pages)?:


 * "In the early twenty-first century, the world has been seized by one of the most intense periods of anti-Americanism in history. Reviled as an imperialist power, an exporter of destructive capitalism, an arrogant crusader against Islam, and a rapacious over-consumer casually destroying the planet, it seems that the United States of America has rarely been less esteemed in the eyes of the world.


 * In such an environment, one can easily overlook the fact that people from other countries have, in fact, been hating America for centuries. Going back to the day of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, Americans have long been on the defensive.


 * Barry Rubin and Judith Colp Rubin here draw on sources from a wide range of countries to track the entire trajectory of anti-Americanism. Most significantly, they identify how anti-Americanism evolved over time. In the 18th century, the newfound land was considered too wild and barbaric to support human society. No one, the argument went, could actually live there. Animals brought from Europe, one French commentator claimed, shrunk in size and power. Native Americans too were "small and feeble," lacking "body hair, beard and ardor for his female." The very land itself was "permeated with moist and poisonous vapors, unable to give proper nourishment except to snakes and insects." This opinion prevailed through most of the 19th century, with Keats even invoking the lack of nightingales as symptomatic of just how unlovely and unlivable a place this America was.


 * As the young nation came together at the beginning of the twentieth century and could no longer be easily dismissed as a failure, its very success became cause for suspicion. The American model of populist democracy, the rise of mass culture, the spread of industrialization-all confirmed that America was now a viral threat that could destabilize the established order in Europe.


 * After the paroxysm of World War II, the worst fears of anti-Americanists were realized as the United States became one of the two most powerful nations in the world. Then, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, America became the sole superpower it is today, and the object of global suspicion and scorn.


 * With this powerful work, the Rubins trace the paradox that is America, a country that is both the most reviled and most envied land on earth. In the end, they demonstrate, anti-Americanism has often been a visceral response to the very idea-as well as both the ideals and policies--of America itself, its aggressive innovation, its self-confidence, and the challenge it poses to alternative ideologies."

Do you think Rubin and Colp have wasted their time writing 336 pages on the subject when Life.temp has discovered through original research the absolute eternal truth that only two pages can ever be written on the subject ever? Do you and Life-temp propose to police this article to make sure new contributors can't add any more words to it? What gives you this right? The wikipedia has not. Turning a decent article into a miserable stub is against wikipedia policy and you have no right to dictate to other editors otherwise. You are not the owner of the wikipedia. Life.temp has not made a single solitary constructive edit all the time he has been here: all he does is revert and delete. And you support him! You criticised me for not giving a cite for the Mexican painting but you and Life.temp have not cited a single solitary article or book supporting your viewpoint that there is nothing to be said about anti-Americanism. The Oxford University Press think it is a scholarly subject. If you think they are idiots to do so give me a citation.

Who should be rewarded in your opinion, the person who builds a house and furnishes it or the person who breaks all the windows and then tosses a hand-grenade inside? I have devoted hours and hours of my time trying to make this a decent article and you just want to trash it. Deleting stuff is just SO easy. Colin4C (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Calm down, man - it was just an idea. At this point, I'd say that we need to explore other options to get some consensus on how to proceed. WP:RFC is probably the way to go. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The article violates neutrality in many ways. Those ways have been explained to you many times. Length is not quality. If someone decided to quadruple the length of the article on bigotry by picking things to call bigotted, or by sourcing only one side in such debates, it would not improve the article. Life.temp (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Rather than assume good faith Life.temp has brought an action against me here: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. This is the second action he has taken against editors of this article who disagree with him. An abuse of process IMHO. As for me I will continue to maintain the integrity of this article and make a positive contribution here to the analysis of anti-Americanism. That is what I have been doing for the last two years on the wikipedia: making a positive contribution and never ever engaging in mass deletions of referenced material. See for instance my article Music hall. I am not a wikilawyer but a published academic who wants to spread knowledge about the real world. If that is a sin so be it. Colin4C (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Posting at ANI is an attempt at getting more opinions to resolve a dispute. The fact that you're implying that that's the opposite of good faith makes me think Life.temp may have some grounds for his complaint after all, whereas before I thought this was a case of mutual fault. In a dispute like this you should be welcoming more eyes on the situation, Colin, not berating the effort.  Equazcion •✗/C • 12:59, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * But this is what it says on the ANI page:

"What these pages are not: This page is not part of our dispute resolution process. If you want to discuss the possible misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here. However this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If your problem concerns a content issue and does not need the attention of administrators, please follow the steps in dispute resolution."

The ANI page is "for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators." Which makes me think it redundant because one of the long standing editors here (Marskell) is an admin. Colin4C (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You can think it's redundant. Just don't say it's bad faith. Perhaps Life.temp made a mistake in choosing the wrong venue to air his concerns, but that doesn't make his actions anything more than an attempt at solving a conflict.  Equazcion •✗/C • 17:10, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume there's a policy somewhere barring admins from intervening on their own behalf. Marksell is involved in editing this article, and has a very clear side in the disputes. It would hardly be appropriate for him to intervene here. Life.temp (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no such policy. Colin4C (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It may not be a policy but it is frowned upon, per common sense -- it's a conflict of interest, of course. Administrative actions by admins involved in the very situations they're attempting to resolve are usually overturned. Admins who want to use admin tools in a dispute they're involved in themselves are supposed to refrain and ask others to decide, usually at ANI. Besides I believe there actually is a policy that says admins shouldn't block users with whom they're engaged in a content dispute.  Equazcion •✗/C • 02:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Bullying
My thanks to Colin4C for his comment (on my talk page) about my constructive edits. Most of my work has however been removed by user Marskell, calling it "sloppy and overdetailed". I'll say his comments on my edits amount to bullying and harassment. I've noticed, from one of Colin's comments further up this page that Marskell is an admin. That fact, and the fact that he does (in my opinion) clearly act like a bully, and also seems to be a long-time editor of this article, makes me think that I will be wasting too much time if I were to attempt any further contributions. I'm quite sure. Sorry about that. And to HelloAnnyoung: Chiming in, like you asked me to, and out. ΑΩ (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Marskell lacks a lot of tact, for an admin. She's also been editing this article for a very long time, and if she's honest with herself, she would admit to having some ownership issues here. You're not the first editor she's run off of this.  Equazcion •✗/C • 13:06, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've run trolls off and will continue to do so. But I don't run off good contributions. Some of what AQ added I reincorporated after reverting, as it is an improvement to our Usage section. Among things I cut:


 * "On the other hand, the suffix -ism is used to form a variety of nouns, denoting attributes (such as heroism or egoism), principles of belief (such as conservatism, liberalism or communism), prejudice and discrimination (such as racism, sexism and ageism), or disease and disorders (such as aneurism, astigmatism, and autism)."


 * AQ wanted this for the first paragraph. Sorry, but this is sloppy and it's the wrong page for it. Note the edit also changed the first sentence to the adjective form, which would obviously need discussing. The next batch of edits was also sloppy as it paid no attention to paragraph flow. And it was over-detailed as it devoted a mass of space to a single usage at the end of the War of 1812, and another mass of space to a single academic who's still redlinked. If you can chop the 1812 bit down to one sentence it might go back in. Marskell (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Er...just to say that I'm sorry I assumed you were a man above...Colin4C (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I said, lack of tact. ΑΩ isn't a troll. Neither was I.  Equazcion •✗/C • 17:11, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Read the sentences together: "I've run trolls off and will continue to do so. But I don't run off good contributions." I don't think AQ is a troll (or you) and thought she did make some good contributions. But we need to better rationalize how we incorporate things (particularly with regard to WP:UNDUE); it's been a persistent problem.
 * I am a man, incidentally; I was enjoying the creative ambiguity. Marskell (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Shit, I just went and assumed AQ was a woman myself... In the interest of progress, we should invent a new pronoun once and for all. Marskell (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying you were calling us trolls. I was saying you ran us off when we weren't trolls.  Equazcion •✗/C • 19:15, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not mistake brevity for tactlessness. I am short in dealing with this article, but I've never been unreasonable. Reverting, but then abbreviating and reinserting useful information, with proper attention to summary style, is not running people off an article. (Granted, I should have abbreviated the 1812 stuff when I first saw it because it's not at all a bad addition.) I have just reinserted a shorter version. Marskell (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you were unreasonable. I said you were tactless, and yes, brevity can often mean tactlessness. Tact doesn't mean doing reasonable things. It means taking the time to make sure people don't feel their efforts are unappreciated. Being "short" does indeed = tactlessness. You're an unpleasant person to deal with, and that's what has and will continue to drive people away from wanting to work on pages you're involved in.  Equazcion •✗/C • 20:02, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * That's rather sweeping. And presumably ill-informed, given that I can't think of a single page other than this one that I've dealt with you on. But having dealt, amicably, with hundreds of people on hundreds of pages over three plus years, I must say that you're wrong. I get along well enough—even if I'm short sometimes. I did get angry here one night a couple of weeks ago (mainly 'cause of Light.temp) but I think I apologized the next day.
 * Anyway, Equazcion, I don't think you are a troll. But I have yet to see any additions of yours to this article that have added useful sources, contributed to summary style, rationalized the ToC, or produced any of the other work that contributes to a Wikipedia page. I don't want to drive you off at all, and I've found you quite reasonable, but it would be good to see some useful ideas for improving our article. Marskell (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah you've mentioned the sources thing once or twice or four times before. Adding sources isn't all there is to making articles better. Cutting out what doesn't belong is another important part of improving Wikipedia. That's why we have a few entire processes devoted to deleting entire articles. We're not just writers. We're called "editors", for a reason. You yourself, I do believe, did some cutting of content you felt didn't belong, which resulted in this very discussion, in which you berate others for not having "contributed" in the specific manner that you exclusively deem productive. You've made that same hypocritical complaint about others in the past. As for "I've dealt amicably...," you'll have to excuse me if I doubt your objectivity in judging your own past performance.  Equazcion •✗/C • 20:28, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then, case solved. You're here to remove material, not improve it. Sure, I've advocated removing things on Anti-Americanism, and I've also suggested and provided additions. You'll have to excuse me, if I expect the same of people I'm talking to. If you haven't even read the sources provided (I don't know if you have—I don't think so, because you give no indication of having done so), and aren't prepared to engage with those sources, and aren't considering new sources, and aren't providing specific prose suggestions...well, really then, pardon me for asking so much of you. Here I am a tactless motherfucker who actually cares about an article he's edited for three years, and actually looks for sources. And here you are, with vast editorial experience, but apparently no insight into the article as it stands.
 * Really, sorry. Once, twice, a fourth time...dammit, now a fifth time. Start talking about sources vis-a-vis the article as it stands and perhaps we can get somewhere. Start a new thread, because this one is a bloody waste of time. Marskell (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

← I don't excuse you. Removing material is not in opposition to improving the article -- again, that's as you yourself have proven. You're making up your own rules for contributing. Demanding that people either add sources or get out is inexcusable.  Equazcion •✗/C • 22:20, 30 Apr 2008 (UTC)

'''I'll have to correct a misrepresentation of the facts of this "case". (Thus the bold text) The comment (from Marskell) "overdetailed and sloppy" was not directed at my first edit, wherein was to be found the quote made (by Marskell) some way up here - "On the other hand, the suffix -ism... etc" - in my view the perhaps least important part of that edit. The comment on the whole of which was (from Marskell): "rm totally unnecessary tangent. ill add the websters ref to the next sect". To which I made no complaint. Though I did find that 'totally' somewhat telling... I'll have to say the same about the fairly obvious misrepresentation of fact. ΑΩ (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I am still not clear whether you a man or a woman? Call me old fashioned but I hate all this unisex thing. I'm a man by the way. Colin4C (talk) 09:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not asked anyone to "get out," Equ. The only real demand I've had is for someone to run check user on Life.temp. (Has that still not been done?)
 * AQ, I'm sorry that my edit summaries were terse. My first post in this thread details why I thought both edits were sloppy—I don't see any telling misrepresentations. Marskell (talk) 13:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Get out" is of course a metaphor. If you want the longer quote, you said that I'm "here to remove material, not improve it," whereas you, "suggested and provided additions" and "expect the same of people I'm talking to." So again, you're making up your own rules for contributing. The reality on Wikipedia is that if someone wants to edit and reorganize an article without adding any prose or sources, that is of course not only allowed, but can be an asset to any article. You can "expect" whatever you like, I suppose, but there's no valid reason for such an expectation. It's just something you made up. And the checkuser suggestion was rejected because there was no reason to make one.  Equazcion •✗/C • 02:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize the case had been closed on Life.temp. I guess we'll have to live with the clone until he starts socking in earnest again.
 * Metaphorically, you find me unwelcoming. Sorry. In plain terms, I have not asked you or AQ to get out. So, onwards and upwards with the article. Marskell (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you haven't asked us to get out in plain terms. I just told you what you did say, and it was unacceptable. No I don't just find you unwelcoming, although that is part of the problem. You make up your own rules and expect others to follow them. Perhaps you only do that here at this article, I'm not sure. Perhaps you feel it's your right, since you've been editing this article for so long. But even if you do, you know what that's called? Ownership. That's of course not allowed, and that's not a rule I made up. You follow Wikipedia's rules. We don't follow your rules. Try to remember that, Mr. Administrator.  Equazcion •✗/C • 16:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Insisting that we keep discussions strictly focused on sources is hardly my rule. *Shrugs.* Marskell (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that that's at all what you were insisting on, but nevertheless, please do point me to the guideline or policy that says discussions on article talk pages must focus strictly on sources.  Equazcion •✗/C • 18:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving on
To move on, a Q: what regions are relevant to a survey article on this? I'd actually support removing Australia, for instance; not because no AA exists there but because it's not particularly important to the phenomenon as a whole. The Regional attitudes is close on the whole, however. I would suggest Middle East, Europe, East Asia, and Latin America as the only needed subheadlines.

That done, what to focus on in each section? We're spending far too many words on Bush, for instance. Europe gives too much time to Britain and not enough time to France, which is the more important country on the topic. In the Middle East, Sayyid Qutb is certainly important, but we should reduce those massive quotes.

And so on. I'd like to move past these debates about wholesale removal of sections and on to discussions of improving the sections that exist. Marskell (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One strange omission is Osama Bin Laden who has declared global war on America and the American way, has made many statements on his beliefs in these matters and has utilised long standing Anti-Americanism in the Islamic world to maintain his cause. Since World War Two the CIA have been intervening in Middle Eastern politics in just the same detrimental way as in South America, causing a similar sense of resentment amongst certain sectors of the community. Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism and Anti-Americanism have merged in opposition to the state of Israel which is supported by the US. Colin4C (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's all POV to say Australia is "not particularly important to the phenomenon as a whole...[France] is the more important country etc." Obviously, you want to dismiss the discussion of removing sections, but that is not a reason to dismiss the discussion. None of the major points about policy violations have been addressed. This article labels people in ways they do not accept for themselves. It labels them with a term that has a pejorative connotation. That violates several principles of neutrality. The article itself says that there is debate about whether the term is meaningful or a propaganda term to dismiss criticism of the US as prejudiced. Then, the article goes on to use the term to describe criticism of the US. No progress is possible on this article until the neutrality concerns are addressed.Life.temp (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * France is the more important country, especially on the academic end of things. As our Usage section makes clear, a lot of the conceptual work has been done by French writers. On the whole, I don't see Australian AA as significant enough to warrant its own section. It's not a violation of NPOV to make editorial decisions of this sort; in fact, its just what our sourcing policies demand.


 * As has been roundly discussed, this article cannot proceed on a "self-identification only" basis. If reliable sources, such as PEW and Foreign Affairs, frame certain events and trends in terms of AA, we are entitled to do the same. Marskell (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It has not been discussed at all. The issue has been dodged, and when your points have been refuted (e..g your analogy to bigotry) you've dropped the subject. And an encyclopedia is not entitled to frame things with a POV just because some other organization does so. And, a great deal of what is presented as anti-Americanism here is not framed as such by the sources cited. The sentiment polls are not described as anti-Americanism indicators by the pollsters. Not only does this article label people in ways they don't accept, it labels them in ways the sources do not--when it has sources, which it often does not. Nor have you addressed the neutrality problem in using this term to describe criticism of the US, while simultaneously acknowledging debate over whether such use of the term is propaganda. Life.temp (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * PEW clearly and explicitly describes their polling in terms of AA; sourcing policy allows us to cite it as such.


 * But this is pointless. I didn't respond to your comments on bigotry because I didn't have a clue what you were trying to say, and I still don't. Is your position that we can only describe something as AA when someone stands up and says "I am an Anti-American."? That would be POV. To proceed on that basis you'd need to show me academics who have said "the term anti-Americanism is confined only to self-identification." But the academics don't say that. They broadly define AA in one of two ways: as a real bigotry (with or without self-identification) or as a propaganda term. (Pierre Guerlain's quote added by AQ is helpful clarification in this regard.) Marskell (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, to proceed on that basis I only need to show you Wikipedia policy that says terms with pejorative connotations, usually applied by outsiders, are not neutral. That has been done, repeatedly. Most of the polls cited here do NOT "clearly and explicitly describe their polling in terms of AA." Some of them are not even about the US. When there are sources that do explicitly talk about AA, sourcing policy allows us to discuss the fact they have that opinion, not assert their opinion as fact. Life.temp (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To define the term as self-identification only you require sources that limit it in such a way. It's really quite simple. None of the sources do so, so we cannot. I don't think you understand the sourcing policies. V says nothing about "...terms with pejorative connotations, usually applied by outsiders, are not neutral." NPOV quite clearly states "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it 'POV'," which is exactly what you are trying to do. NPOV asks us to let the facts speak for themselves, to describe arguments but not engage in them, and to attribute and substantiate as much as possible. The only policy that I can think of that matches your argument is BLP but there's no BLP info here. Marskell (talk) 07:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the term is defined as self-identification. I said there are several Wikipedia policies and guidelines which point out that it is not neutral to label people in ways they don't accept for themselves, particularly when that labelling constitutes taking sides in a political debate. No sources define "bigot" as a self-identifying term; nonethelss a neutral encyclopedia doesn't go around labelling people as bigots. I'm not removing POV; I'm removing POV stated as fact in the narrative voice of the article. I object to an article saying "Affirmative action is racist [1]" but not to "So-and-so argues that affirmative action is racist [1]" where [1] is the so-and-so saying that. By analogy, this article repeatedly does the first, i.e. says "Such-and-such is anti-American". Even if all that POV was converted to the second form, it would still have undue weight problems.
 * Relevant policies and guidelines:

Where there is doubt, aim for neutrality. 
 * Some terms are considered pejorative, or have negative associations, even if they are quite commonly used. Even though people may use these terms themselves, they may not appreciate being referred to by such terms by others (for example, faggot, nigger, tranny).  Note that neutral terminology is not necessarily the most common term — a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders.
 * However, do not be so general as to render terms meaningless.

A large number of terms are used in everyday speech, and are defined in the dictionary, which nonetheless are almost always applied by "outsiders" in some sphere, to "insiders". For example:


 * "The Peoples Temple cult began in..."
 * "The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organization"
 * "Pedophilia is a form of sexual perversion"

'''Such terms often convey to readers an implied viewpoint—that of the "outsider looking in and labelling as they see it". The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it is pejorative or inflammatory in nature.''' 

The article itself says the term is usually pejorative, and considered propaganda by some notable experts. Then it goes on to label whole cultures with the term. The lack of neutrality should be an obvious non-issue. Life.temp (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Two guidelines, one only proposed. The first, related to article titles, isn't germane and the second deals with the diction we employ in describing the term. This article does not, by large, say "such-and-such is anti-Americanism"; at virtually every point, the author who has made the argument is explicitly identified. That's what NPOV and your second citation demand. Marskell (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You need stop making stuff up. The first is described as "a Wikipedia guideline for dealing with issues of naming people and their identities in Wikipedia articles." Not restricted to titles. The second is not what you said; it is what it says. Namely, words to avoid. In both cases, there are reasons and principles given for the guidelines: respond to those ideas, instead of inventing excuses to dodge the point. Finally, identifying the author is not sufficient, as I have already made clear to you over and over and over. In the example, "Affirmative action is racist [1]" the source is identified. Still doesn't belong in a neutral encyclopedia. Life.temp (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * At the top of the first link you'll notice "The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process." I didn't even know it existed. Attributing the author in-phrase is sufficient, if the author is sufficiently notable for mention. "Affirmative action is racist" is POV but "Clarence Thomas has called affirmative action racist" or "a PEW poll suggests 60% of white Americans consider affirmative action racist" would be acceptable. Both your second link and NPOV suggest as much.


 * Anyway, is there some other articles you'd enjoy crusading on for a while? Perhaps the abortion stuff? This is becoming awfully dull. Marskell (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, you've dodged the reason for the guideline: labeling people against their will with a term acknowledged as often pejorative and propaganda is not neutral. The "proposed" template was added to the article two weeks ago, so, no, I hadn't seen it. But, you should make an effort to address reasons instead of grasping at flimsy straws such as that someone recently added a template to one of the guidelines I mentioned.
 * This is correct: Affirmative action is racist" is POV but "Clarence Thomas has called affirmative action racist" or "a PEW poll suggests 60% of white Americans consider affirmative action racist" would be acceptable. Both your second link and NPOV suggest as much. Removing what you just called POV is what I've attempted, and you've opposed for the last month or so.
 * If you find this dull, go away. Life.temp (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Medcab
Just throwing in a small question: can someone updated the Medcab request with the latest developments? It hasn't been touched in several weeks, and there's clearly more discussion going on here. On a side note, I don't think this is going to get resolved without some form of higher-up DR. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * THere is no update. The article still labels living people with a pejorative propaganda term they don't accept for themselves. It still exists in its current form against consensus, without any interest from Colin and Marksell in reaching consensus. It still violates policies on neutrality, which Marksell just acknowledged above (probably without realizing it). Life.temp (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Newcomers (such as myself) may look at this problem is you indicate by which keyword 'Medcab' shows in the article. Springwalk (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul Hollander's unwitting anti-Americanism
I had promised myself that I would walk away from this... mess. (Not really because of any single editor of this article) But still, as I've found some information that might seem relevant, I'll put it here. A NY Times review from 1992, by one Herbert Mitgang, of "an unwittingly anti-American book that is actually intended to be a defense of what the author considers to be the one true patriotic American way: his vision of a squeaky-clean, uncritical acceptance of the government and the country." That was, a book by one Paul Hollander:

Books of The Times; Americans as America's Own Worst Enemy

ΑΩ (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The funniest thing I ever read was a review of Antonioni's film Zabriskie Point in which the reviewer complained that 'it gave Anti-Americanism a bad name'. Personally I believe in the American ideal of free speech and against anti-American censorship of wikipedia articles. Manifest Destiny sucks though IMHO. As for walking away from this article I'm reminded of the closing scene in Jean Paul Sartre's play Huis-Clos in which the the doors of Hell open but the protagonists decide they'd rather stay and finish their argument than get (the hell) out of the joint... Colin4C (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is kind of funny... "How can I escape from Americanism ?" John-Paul Sartre, Oct 18 1947


 * There can surely be no exit by way of Anti-Americanism ? ΑΩ (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And I believe in the very ancient ideal of free speech. However, I don't see it as a particularly "American" ideal, or virtue. The birth of democracy, pretty much as we know it - with slaves and all - found place in Athens, Greece, from what I've heard. Free Speech and Democracy in Ancient Athens ΑΩ (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with AQ here. Hollander is considered something of an axe-grinder. At the same time, on the opposing side, so is Chomsky. The current article devotes a good deal of space to Chomsky, so I'm willing to accept a good deal of space to Hollander.
 * What would be nice is if we had more people like O'Connor and Joffe who, while perhaps of opposing viewpoints, offer something measured, rather than polemical. But, if we are to reflect the body of published opinion, we have to give space to the polemicists. They are the best known. It's one of the difficulties in editing this article. Marskell (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article devotes quite a bit more space to Hollander than Chomsky. Life.temp (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to say that we don't have to agree with the arguments of an axe grinding polemicist or even grant their arguments credibility. As wikipedia editors it is our job to report on notions which are 'out there' not to do original research according to our own ideas of 'right think'. Nor are articles demonstration pieces for idiosyncratic interpretations of wikipedia 'laws'. The wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a post-modern self-referential reflection on how reality matches up to notional wikipedia 'rules'. Colin4C (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As wikipedia editors it is our job to report on notions which are 'out there' not to do original research according to our own ideas of 'right think'.
 * Indeed. That's why this article should not go around calling things anti-American (or not). It shold merely report the fact that the opinion exists, and give equal weight to reliable, opposing views.
 * Our other job as editors is to reach consensus, which is why you and Marksell should not be going around refusing mediation, attacking other editors including Third Opinion editors, and responding to every concern with sarcasm and distortion. Life.temp (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please discuss the issues not personalities.
 * On your main point if a term is used in pejorative sense that doesn't mean that what it refers to in an ordinary descriptive sense does not exist. When Senator McCarthy falsely and perjoratively accused liberals of being communist spies that false description did not mean that there were no communist spies in reality. Similarly if a liberal was falsely and perjoratively accused by McCarthy of being 'anti-American' or 'un-American' and was brought before the HUAC commitee that does not mean that there is no such thing as 'anti-Americanism'. For instance Hitler was explicitly anti-American and so is Osama Bin Laden. Laden declared war on the USA in 1998, told assembled journalists that Americans civilians were fair targets and demonstrated his beliefs on 9/11. As long as we give standard academic citations then this is an encyclopediac topic. We are making reference to what academics and others say is anti-American, not making an original research judgement for ourselves. We are merely wikipedia editors not pundits or philosophers. We are also free to provide contradictory citations. If author A says 'X is anti-American' we are at perfect liberty to give a citation from author B disputing what author A has said on the opinions of X. What we shouldn't do is intrude our personal opinions as to the validity of the notion and reality of anti-Americanism into the text of the article.  Colin4C (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say anything about personalities. I didn't say anything about what exists. I didn't say this isn't an encyclopedic topic. I didn't say we shouldn't give "contradictory citations." I didn't say anything about "the validity of the notion and reality of anti-Americanism." Again, you are responding with sarcasm and distortion. Our job as editors is to work towards consensus. Do it.Life.temp (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You said above that this article "labels living people with a pejorative propaganda term they don't accept for themselves". Au contraire Bin Laden at a press conference in 1998 called Americans 'thieves' and said that killing American civilians was permissable. He then declared war on America. In front of the media. It was recorded on film and in print. In your somewhat bizarre terms Osama presumably 'accepts for himself' that he is anti-American but inner acceptence of whatever is not the issue on the wikipedia. 'Inner acceptance' is not verifiable on the wikipedia or any other encyclopedia and is not a condition for inclusion of material in wikipedia articles. All we have to go on in wikipedia is what is reported of people in print or on film. Anything else is either anecdotal, original research or imagination. Both explicit anti-Americanism of the Bin Laden variety or alleged anti-Americanism of the McCarthyite accusation type can be sourced with citations. Reports of what Bin Laden or Hollander etc etc said can be sourced. If there are conflicting reports these can be sourced also. If Y disagrees with X that Bin Laden or whoever is anti-American we are perfectly at liberty to report it in this article. If an author reports that the notion of anti-Americanism is being wrongly used we can report that in the article. Anti-Americanism is a live topic of debate and research with scores of books and articles written on it. Our opinions as to the validity of notions or realities in the outside world is not important. Our job is to report them in a balanced way. Colin4C (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say anything about "inner acceptance." I didn't say things couldn't be sourced. I didn't say anti-Americanism isn't a topic of debate. Read. Life.temp (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You said 'accept for themselves' and left it ambiguous what method we are to use to elucidate what people 'accept for themselves'. A signed affidavit in front of a lawyer that they are anti-American? Anyway this is all academic because inclusion of material on people, animals and objects in the wikipedia is not dependent on what they 'accept for themselves'. Colin4C (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say all material depends on self-identification. You've been given the link to the Wikipedia guideline on self-identification several times. You've been given wiki-links on neutrality several times. Again, you're making sarcastic strawman arguments. Life.temp (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about wikipedia policies or supposed wikipedia policies but about your statement that this article "labels living people with a pejorative propaganda term they don't accept for themselves". That is not true. As I have stated in the article - with citations - there are people such as Bin Laden who are avowed anti-Americans, taking both their recorded sayings - eg declaring war on America in 1998 - and their actions - eg 9/11. It is of course possible that all the reporters and academics and professors are biased in what they record about Bin Laden and have forged all the material we have about him - but you could say that about any subject in the universe. Maybe everything we believe is untrue - implanted in our brains by Evil Aliens. That, however, is not the wikipedia criterion. We can only record anything about anything in the universe in the wikipedia through citations of what one person says about another person or thing. There is no other way. Direct access to the truth is not possible and not permissable on the wikipedia. So if you think a sentence or a paragraph is POV provide a counter argument and a counter source don't just delete it. If we mass deleted all and everything we suspected was POV on the wikipedia we would end up with no encyclopedia at all. Be constructive in your edits. Colin4C (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First, Colin, I have removed Australia again. We have four broad regions, logically chosen—we need to justify why one specific country deserves its own section on top of these. The only specific country that I'd suggest might deserve a section is France (and perhaps Iran).
 * On the larger points, I think it's stupid to continue talking to Life.temp. It's just tortured logic supporting tortured logic. He wants to delete everything (both as Bscharvy and with his present login) and it's obvious he'll continue to argue ad nauseum. FWIW, I audited for individuals that the article might be representing as anti-American and came up with ten: Cornelius de Pauw, Abbé Raynal, Heidegger, Oswald Spengler, Dr. Johnson (added by myself years ago), Luis Araquistáin, Thierry Meyssan (not explicitly mentioned), Sayyid Qutb, bin Laden, and Hugo Chávez. (Possible I missed a couple.) With each, the individual's own words are allowed to speak for themselves and, while the ref formatting is a mess, references are ultimately provided. I see no issue. We should clean the place up, to be sure, but there's no violation of our main sourcing policies. Almost all of them are dead, so the only policy that Life.temp's argument resembles (BLP) doesn't apply. Marskell (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am talking about policies. If you are not, we're not talking about the same thing. The article very obviously calls people anti-American who don't call themselves that; the fact that some people call themselves that is irrelevant, since this article doesn't restrict itself to those people. I didn't say all sources are biased, I didn't say anything about "direct access to the truth," I didn't say anything about mass deletion. Marksell, calling it "stupid" to talk to me, and your constant references to a groundless sock-puppet case, are violations of policies on good faith and civility. You also are distorting what I have said. I didn't say we should "delete everything." The people this article labels as anti-American includes all the Japanese who protested the gang-child-rape, all the Britons who expressed a decline in "favorable sentiment" in the Pew polls cited here, all the Middle Easterners who called US policies "unfair" in the polls cited here, etc., since all these cases are presented by this article as facts of anti-americanism. That violates polcies on neutrality and original research, and it violates guidelines on negative comments about living people and labelling people in ways they don't accept for themselves. Life.temp (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How do we know what people 'accept for themselves'? A signed affidavit in front of a lawyer? But what if they lied on oath? Should we then use truth drugs and lie detectors? But this is all academic - as conjecturing what people 'accept for themselves' is not a requirement for material in wikipedia articles. Also 'anti-Americanism' is not seen by all people as negative. There are some people in the world who see it as positive. They may be wicked to think so but we editors are not here to promote our personal POVs on this or any other issue. Colin4C (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And what about religious affiliations? Are we only allowed to print what Moslems, Buddhists and Christians 'accept for themselves' when describing these religions on the wikipedia? No outside views allowable? Colin4C (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The more accurate analogy would be to ask: Are we allowed to assert someone is a Moslem/Buddhist/Christian who doesn't call himself that? And, the answer is no. Life.temp (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The answer is yes. We are allowed to assert that reliable sources have suggested that someone is of a particular affiliation, if the information is notable. Marskell (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The answer to the question I posed is no. The answer to yours is yes. They are different questions. Life.temp (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't see any probem as long as we attribute what is said to sources. We are not asserting that the source is giving us absolute truth but indicating that this is what they state. E.g. 'According to author X Fidel Castro made statement B attacking the Americans'. And if there is a division of opinion on the matter in the sources we are perfectly at liberty to cite the opinions of the alternative source: 'According to author Y Fidel Castro didn't make statement B attacking the Americans' and thus achieve a NPOV. What we should avoid is the infinite regress of questioning author X's credentials and then questioning on what basis those credentials were obtained etc etc. The playground game of shouting 'prove it' to each succesive justification offered is not how academia or the wikipedia works. In the end nothing can be proved as absolutely true apart from the statement 'I think therefore I am' (Descartes). Imaginary counter-factuals are not helpful either. Be constructive. Negativity is just a childish game which should remain in the playground or the philosophy department. Colin4C (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what you are doing: "We are not asserting that the source is giving us absolute truth" This article frequently does not say 'According to author X Fidel Castro made statement B attacking the Americans'. Instead, it tends to say "Castro is anti-American [1]" where [1] is somebody saying that. Life.temp (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Like a lot of newbie wikipedia editors you misunderstand the nature of citations on the wikipedia. According to the Harvard system (which is allowable on the wikipedia) a citation in the form of: Bloggs (1982) comprehends all of 'according to Professor Bloggs, a noted Professor of Anti-American studies at the University of Tampa, Florida, who passed the guaranteed 100% NPOV in teaching diploma at the the Institute of NPOV studies at Illinois, writing in a book called 'Anti-Americanism Today' in the Year of Our Lord 1982 (oops that should be C.E.!) etc etc etc'. Giving the reference Bloggs (1982) comprehends all the above. I edited the Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference proceedings for several years and have had several articles published in hard-copy encyclopedias published by Oxford University Press so I do know what I am talking about when it comes to standard academic procedure with respect to citations! The playground alternative is the system of infinite regress where eg. we would be required to get the CIA to investigate whether Professor Bloggs was not really Fidel Castro's brother in disguise on a mad mission to spread anti-American sentiments in the Deep South. Then of course we would find out that the CIA agents were really double agents working for Hugo Chavez before finding out that etc etc. The wikipedia and normal academic citation system obviates the necessity of such an infinite regress in the process of discovering what is valid in academic terms. Colin4C (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Policy Violations: Perceived Ideological Contradictions
Samuel Johnson hit upon one theme that, in various and different forms, has long defined some forms of anti-American sentiment: the perceived hypocrisy of a supposed freedom-loving people engaged in less than admirable practices. Americans in his eyes were hypocrites in their relations with Indigenous peoples and African slaves.

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?" He famously stated that, "I am willing to love all mankind, except an American."

Violates neutrality and original research policy. It is opinion that this theme "has long defined some forms of anti-American sentiment" and should not be stated as fact. It is OR, because neither Samual Johnson or anyone else is sourced as describing the view as anti-Americanism..

Early 20th century

As European immigration to the United States continued and the country's economic potential became more obvious, anti-American stances grew a much more explicit geopolitical dimension. A new strand of anti-American sentiment started to appear as America entered the competition for influence in the Pacific, and anti-Americanism was widespread among the Central Powers after the U.S. entered the First World War. Furthermore, many of the anti-American ideological threads spread to other areas, such as Japan and Latin America, where Continental philosophy was popular and growing American power was increasingly viewed as a threat. In political terms, even among the allies of the United States, Britain and France, there was resentment at the end of the war as they found themselves massively in debt to the United States. These sentiments became even more widespread during the interbellum and Great Depression and sometimes tended toward the anti-Semitic: the belief that America was ruled by a Jewish conspiracy was common in countries ruled by fascists before and during World War II.

The same problems: unsourced opinion (i.e. original research) stated as fact (pushing a POV).

The fall of the Soviet Union may have brought an increase in anti-Americanism because the U.S. was left as the world's only superpower and people who formerly saw the United States as a bastion against Communism or needed the American security umbrella no longer felt the need to support the United States. Where the governments of allied states in particular had felt disinclined to openly criticize U.S. policy during the Cold War, they have had fewer such qualms since. "By cultivating an anti-American position, Europe feigns membership in a global opposition of the downtrodden by America."[34] In addition, criticism of American economic sanctions and embargoes toward various countries, including Cuba, Sudan, North Korea and Iran, while maintaining commercial relations with countries such as China generates resentment[citation needed].

Again, opinion stated as fact. The one source is for a brief quote; that source is a personal essay. So, the source doesn't justify stating anything as fact. If there were no other problems, the acceptable format would be along the lines of "According to Andrei Markovits..."

French author Jean-François Revel wrote that "For skeptics of democratic capitalism, the United States is, quite simply, the enemy. For many years, and still today, a principal function of anti-Americanism has been to discredit the nation that stands as the supreme alternative to socialism. More recently, Islamists, anti-modern Greens, and others have taken to pillorying the U.S. for the same reason."[31]

This is just a random quote given its own paragraph, with no connection to the surrounding paragraphs.

The belief that America was ruled by a Jewish conspiracy or that Israel was an American puppet state has also motivated anti-American hatred in some circles during the last third of the 20th century. Other items of concern include American military interventions and imperialism, especially in connection with the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the perceived selective favor given to allies of the United States in international institutions[citation needed], especially involving issues like nuclear proliferation [35]. Also the apparent dismissal of international law, i.e. the treatment of detainees, in the War on Terror has intensified criticism.

Again, massive interpretation and original research presented as fact. No source for anything said. The one source given is 1) a personal essay, 2) doesn't support the text. Even if everything were attributed the article would have problems with undue weight.

"Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles." Life.temp (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Be constructive. All of your edits for the past month have involved massive deletions of valid sourced material. If you continue at this rate there will be nothing left of the article. Is that your aim? To destroy this article or turn into an incoherent stub? Colin4C (talk) 10:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Framing
I am going to work up some better sourced sections in my sandbox, when I have the time over the next few days. (Having taken a breath, I now think some time under protection might be for the best).

Meanwhile, I'd like to get some second opinions on the frame of the article. There are two basic options: a chronology, or a theme-based page that describes prominent AA sentiments without necessarily paying attention to chronology. Once upon a time, the page had a theme/trend structure, but about 18 months ago an editor tried to shift it to a history/chronology structure. It didn't really work. At present, it's a bad hybrid. The TOC is seriously weird, for instance.

Both frames have their merits. Chronologies have a certain reader appeal and are most easily digested. But focusing on trends would not force us to pigeonhole some idea into a particular time period. To give some idea of what I mean, two very rough possibilities:


 * History
 * Eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries
 * Late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
 * Cold War
 * Post Cold War

Versus:


 * Prominent anti-American views
 * Degeneracy thesis and Romantic hostility
 * Perceived hypocrisy
 * Technology, capitalism, and globalization
 * Identity and "Otherness"

Option one is the simplest and cleanest. But option two would probably allow for better explanatory power. (Note my headlines in the second are merely suggestive; we'd obviously need to talk about them.) So I'm of two minds and hope for third opinions. Marskell (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither. You are proceeding on the assumption that the term is meaningful, not propaganda. Yet, the article itself says:
 * "it has also been suggested that Anti-Americanism cannot be isolated as a consistent phenomenon"
 * "the applicability of the term is often disputed"
 * "critics sometimes argue the label is a propaganda term that is used to dismiss any censure of the United States as irrational."
 * "Noam Chomsky, a prolific critic of U.S. policy, asserts that the use of the term within the U.S. has parallels with methods employed by totalitarian states or military dictatorships"
 * "Brendon O'Connor notes that studies of the topic have been "patchy and impressionistic," and often one-sided attacks on anti-Americanism as an irrational position"
 * "criticisms of the United States are labeled "anti-American" by supporters of U.S. policies in an ideological bid to discredit their opponents."
 * As it stands, these concerns are mentioned in the first section, "definitions and usage" and then utterly ignored for the rest of the article. The history and regional attitudes sections proceed as if these concerns do not exist. As such, the article pushes th POV that the term is not propaganda, not merely an ideological pejorative. A better structure would be to choose a few choice examples featuring debate about the applicability of the term, describe both sides, and leave it at that.
 * The degeneracy thesis section should be eliminated entirely, or moved to its own article. It concerns a time before the United States even existed, so it is outside the definition of anti-Americanism (which is already far too broad). As far as I can tell, one of the few things we all agree on is that the dictionary definition is too broad: why broaden the scope even more? Life.temp (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Life.temp do you think that Osama bin Laden's declaration of war on the USA in 1998 was a 'meaningless notion'? What about 9/11? Was that a 'meaningless notion' also? Is burning an American flag and shouting "Death to America" 'meaningless'? I submit au contraire that these are openly and explicitly anti-American actions for real - in the real word of reality. I also think that the notion of 'anti-Americanism' has a great deal of explanatory power. Vide the situation after the collapse of Soviet Russia everybody thought that South American socialist regimes would also collapse as part of a perceived grand-narrative of Evil Empire Commies losing the Cold War to the The Free World. However, as it happened the South American communist regimes and insurgencies in South America did not wither and die - there were historic anti-American tendencies there going right back to the Alamo, well before the Soviet Experiment and continuing well after. Remember the Alamo? Colin4C (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One thought about the "Degeneracy thesis": From say 1600 to 1800, Europe thought itself superior not just to the Americas but to the entire world. White, christian Europe was thought to be the light of civilization and inherently superior to all other cultures, and the rest of the world was a barbarian place to be used as Europeans saw fit. I would have to agree that labeling it anti-American is a bit misleading because 1) America didn't exist at the time, 2) Europeans thought that way about every place not in Europe. European depictions of Africa at the time are truly horrific. henrik  • talk  08:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there are other opinions. Marskell (talk) 06:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My initial thoughts is that I like the history division better. It will be simpler and fairly easy to maintain and to comprehend for the readers. The objection that some trends overlaps two or more of the history sections could fairly easily be resolved by introducing them in both. "XXX continued during this time, declining towards the YYYs". Given the problems this article have, I would be inclined to chosing the simplest solution as well. henrik  • talk  08:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Last night I preferred themes. Having slept on it, I prefer the history structure. As you say, it will be easier to maintain. Plus, themes/trends invites people to tack on what they like. If done properly, Regional attitudes can be incoporated into the history. Most of it is post-Cold War.


 * As for the degeneracy thesis, it appears to date from about the 1760s, by which point America and Americans would have been known entities to Europeans. One source I was reading yesterday notes that the theory was not extended to Canada and Mexico. It seems that it was a particularly contra-American phenomenon (especially in France). Marskell (talk) 10:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * When I objected to your two proposed frames, I gave reasons. And, I proposed an alternative. If you are going to reject my proposal, it would be polite to give reasons. There would also be more movement toward consensus if you 1) addressed the objections to your approach, 2) explained your objections to someone else's appraoch. Note that explaining your objections doesn't mean being sarcastic. Life.temp (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

please add link
When lock is liftyed, please add in the interwiki link fa:آمریکاستیزی to the bottom of the article. Thank You.--Zereshk (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ henrik  • talk  17:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected
Since recent activities have mostly been a slowmoving revert war (and various escalating attempts at dispute resolution which so far seem to have done little good), I've protected the article for a week in the hope that we can establish some rules of conduct in order to establish productive editing. This is obviously a controversial and emotional topic, but I would like to offer some thoughts on how editors should behave on these kinds of topics:


 * Uncooperative editing is not productive. Do not make an edit that you know will be reverted.
 * Instant reverting: Instant reversion without discussion will not be permitted either. If you simply have to revert, please wait until the issue at hand has been fully discussed on this talk page.
 * Edit summaries: All edits must be accompanied by precise, informative edit summaries. These must clearly indicate if an edit contains something potentially contentious. In particular, all reverts (complete or partial) must be clearly marked as such.
 * Incivility: Especially on controversial subjects, make an extra effort to always be extra polite and civil - otherwise the situation will quickly get out of hand.
 * Make changes in small steps. Lets discuss changes paragraph by paragraph, so that separate issues don't become conflated.

What would be your thoughts on this?

PS. You may have noted that I have edited the article, and thus might be considered disqualified from administrative actions. However, I have not protected the article at my "preferred" version (I'm not even sure I have one). henrik • talk  11:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot of the dispute here seems to derive from unsubstantiated claims that wikipedia policy demands that massive amounts of this article have to be summarily deleted. Hopefully the admins here can clarify what is and is not wikipedia policy and whether supposed unique insight into the same justifies mass deletions and the slagging off of other editors who hold a different view. My position is that the integrity of thoughtful well sourced articles on the wikipedia such as this one should be respected and that mass deletions are never a good idea. There are far worse articles than this on the wikipedia which don't get the summary deletion treatment. If an article is inadequate there are always constructive ways of improving it I feel. Colin4C (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I just made some edits so as to have material in the history and then self-reverted. I don't know that a week is necessary but will leave it up to the protecting admin.
 * I would add to the list: attempt to source or rephrase rather than gut sections. This is the crux of the problem. It's incredibly hard to AGF here given the pattern. "This needs better sourcing/phrasing." OK, maybe so. "Therefore I'm cutting five hundred words." Bleh. Regarding Colin's specific queury, Life.temp's mass deletions might be justified if we were dealing with BLP info. But we aren't. This is certainly sloppy in places and does need more sources; but we should work on the material we have.
 * And we do need to work paragraph by paragraph. I'm willing to do up the Hypocrisy section because it's central to the topic and is underweight at the moment. Could the protection be shortened? Marskell (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I will be happy to shorten the protection, however lets wait for all involved parties to get a chance to talk first. But as soon as we have an agreement here, there's no need for it to stay protected.


 * I fully agree that the pattern of wholesale deletion followed by reversion needs to stop. There are however quite a few paragraphs which are weakly sourced and that at a first glance could be improved in respect to neutrality, but lets try to work through them slowly instead of gutting them. henrik  • talk  11:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The term "gutting" is loaded. It assumes quantity = quality. I don't share the presumption that the encyclopedia can't be improved by shortening this article. Often, taking things out improves a work. Often, shorter is better. The invited Third Opinion editor also suggested a shorter article might be better--Colin threw a fit. This article stands in flagrant violation of core Wikipedia policies described as non-negotiable. Let's not negotiate what is non-negotiable. Wikipedia should not say what is anti-American and what is not. A statement like "A new strand of anti-American sentiment started to appear..." states an opinion as fact, and does so regardless of whether the opinion is sourced. Nor should the article be a catalog of sourced opinions calling things anti-American, with no mention of the other views. That pushes a POV by giving undue weight to one side. Part of the debate is that the term is often pejorative and propaganda, used to dismiss criticism of US policies by equating it with bias. Yet, 90% of the article proceeds as if the term is not propaganda, and cases of anti-Americanism are, as a matter of fact, cases of bias. A good model for this article is the article on bigotry, which is neutral, sourced, and doesn't go around saying who is a bigot and who isn't. Nor does it list every accusation of bigotry that is significant in some editor's eyes. It is not an "incoherent stub." It is short and to the point. Life.temp (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, here we go again. Total refusal to work with the sections we have. As one example of work we might do, Degeneracy thesis can all be sourced to Ceaser, 2003. Henrik, if you unprotect, give me an hour tonight and I'll go over that section. Ditto on Perceived hypocrisy. This is the only way we can work it; once we source the sections better and tidy the language, removing will become a matter of POINT, if not vandalism. Debating wholesale deletions of sections is not getting us anywhere and a week won't solve anything. I'd rather just work on it and ignore the talk page for the timebeing.


 * (Bigotry is a dict def followed by a long digression on etymology. I'd hardly call it a model.) Marskell (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, here we go again. You contradicted one of my conclusions (that the bigotry article is a good model), and addressed none of my reasons. Your proposal to Henrik is, essentially, that my concerns be ignored, that protection be removed so you can do the work you want. What a great proposal. Do I get the same privilege? Henrik, if you unprotect, give me an hour tonight and I will fix all the neutrality and original research and undue weight problems with the article. The point has been made, over and over and over, that the problem is not merely to "source the sections better" Stating opinion as fact isn't neutral, regardless of whether the opinion is sourced. Cataloging accusations of anti-Americanism with only the barest mention of dissenting views isn't neutral. Labeling people with a pejorative term that they don't accept for themselves isn't neutral. These concerns aren't addressed merely by transferring a lot opinions from their sources into the article. And, in an amazing coincidence, the opinions being transferred into the article consistently assume that term is meaningful, not propaganda. This, even though the article itself says that notable experts view the term as politically-charged propaganda. Life.temp (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If I source Degeneracy thesis and Perceived ideological contradictions will you cease removing them? Oui ou non? Marskell (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Marskell, if I may suggest, perhaps you can work on a sandbox draft for a day or two for the Degeneracy thesis section?


 * Let's start by being much tighter about sourcing, and being clearer about attributing subjective views to sources. For example: "Rammstein's 2004 single Amerika was widely perceived as anti-American" is an unsourced statement. Even if it had a source, it would still be problematic. Who exactly perceived it as anti-American? When, where and why did they say that? What kind of bias might they have? (WP:WEASEL). There are other examples of this in the History section, and I suspect this is the basis of Life.temp's complaints. However, I disagree that deletion is a good way to fix it (if nothing else, its not productive as it will only be reverted) - first we should try to rewrite it to fix these problems. henrik  • talk  16:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can work in the sandbox. A large chunk of the early material in the History section is a paraphrase of Ceaser. But other authors turn up so we need not rely only on him. In the meantime, I'd like some assurance from Life.temp that once material is properly sourced it will not be removed. Marskell (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is sort of nitpicking, but henrik, can you add some kind of protection template onto the page? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. henrik  • talk  16:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Re Henrik's statement above:


 * "For example: "Rammstein's 2004 single Amerika was widely perceived as anti-American" is an unsourced statement. Even if it had a source, it would still be problematic. Who exactly perceived it as anti-American? When, where and why did they say that? What kind of bias might they have?"


 * We certainly need a source, but beyond that I feel we not go. This is the problem of infinite regress which I stated above. With every citation in the wikipedia you could ask where the author was coming from and then refer the author's position to some other statement which in turn is based on some other statement ad infinitum until we get to some primary faith statement. Nothing in this world (apart from 'I think therefore I am') can be proved to be based on something absolutely true. What we can say with much more definiteness is that "author X asserted such-and-such". This is how academic citations (in my experience of editing and writing academic books) work. It is up to the reader of the wikipedia to give whatever credence to author X that they think is due based on their own philosophy of life. E.g. to some people a statement by George Bush (or Noam Chomsky or whoever) might be seen as a great revelation whilst others would dismiss it with a shrug and raised eyebrows. I feel it is a mistake to second-guess or otherwise dictate to the readers of the wikipedia what they should think. (IMHO inter-alia it would also be anti-American...). Colin4C (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, Wikipedia primarily strives to be verifiable - not truthful. A wikipedia article should reflect the published opinions of the various experts in a field, crediting each expert for his view and should attempt to give weight to each view proportional to its representation in the expert community. If we can accomplish that, we will have accomplished a neutral, verifiable article with citations that follow academic standards. As you say, the reader can decide how much credence to give to each author of a view provided we clearly attribute it.


 * However, that is not the main problem with the Rammstein example. It uses passive voice (not in itself a no-no, but overused it can lead to misleading weight). I think the problem in that sentence is boils down to the two words "widely percieved". That sort of vauge statement structure which introduces a proposition without attributing it to a source should really be avoided, and that has really very little to do with infinite regress. We must show by whom and where it was percieved to allow the reader to make up his mind instead of simply argue that many thought it. For example, are there regional variations in the perception? I would think there probably was. henrik  • talk  07:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I found this article from the New York Times which states that Ramsteinn's 'Amerika' is of the 'European garden' variety of anti-Americanism. Despite this the American columnist doesn't seem too upset by Ramsteinn's attitude... Maybe we should all here take a leaf out of her book and be really cool about the whole 'pejorative' thing...Colin4C (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That source might merit something like: ""Freelance writer Claire Berlinksi expressed the opinion that one song called Amerika by a German band is anti-American." Why that's notable enough to belong in an encyclopedia is the other part you need to explain. It seems rather remarkable that there is nothing in this article about (alleged) American anti-Americanism. So Rammstein wrote one song considered anti-American (by one source), and that gets into an encyclopedia. How many anti-American songs has Bob Dylan written?Life.temp (talk) 12:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So if we cited Claire Berlinski or any other journalist or writer on say 9/11 would that also be non-notable? And what individual journalists say about events in Iraq is just their personal opinion and not notable? If a single journalist described the Fall of Baghdad would that just be a non-notable personal opinion? All citations on every subject sourced to single authors are ipso facto just the author's personal opinions and non-notable? Is that what you are saying? Or is just when the subject of anti-Americanism comes up that things start becoming non-notable?  Colin4C (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No Colin, none of that is what I said or implied. Make an effort. Life.temp (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If freelance journalist Claire Berlinski went to Bogota and saw the American Embassy being sacked as a guy outside burnt the American flag to a funky beat by Rammsteinn would her report that the incident was anti-American just be her non-notable personal opinion? Anti-Americanism is REAL in South America and elsewhere. Nixon barely got out alive on his trip to Bogota in the sixties. If (like Nixon) you get out there into the real world you will realize that anti-Americanism is not imaginary. Neither are the reports of writers on actual existing anti-Americanism imaginary. The wikipedia should deal truthfully with things which happen in the real world and not censor them. Despite what Big Brother said Ignorance is not Strength. I am British, by the way, but do not deny that there are anti-British sentiments out there which have real practical implications in the real world of reality. For instance I wouldn't walk into an IRA bar in Belfast and shout out 'Anyone for tennis?' or 'Mine's a Pimms young sir'. Though it pains me that anyone should the hate the British I do not deny that it exists. Similarly with Anti-Americanism, it may pain US citizens to know that they are not bathed in universal global love but it is a fact with real implications in the real world of reality. Colin4C (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For Anti-English sentiments see Perfidious Albion. Though as an Englishman I personally find this article heartbreaking I am not going to delete any of it (due to my British pluck and inherent sense of fair play and beside everyone knows that God is an Englishman...if you have Him on your side you have no probs...). Colin4C (talk) 10:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't say anti-Americanism isn't real. I didn't say anything is non-notable. I didn't say Wikipedia should censor things. I didn't say Wikipedia should deal with things untruthfully. I didn't say ignorance is strength. I didn't say US citizens are "bathed in universal global love." You're good at missing the point. Life.temp (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That last sentence of yours isn't very productive and doesn't add anything useful. Lets try to keep the discussion civil and focused on the article. henrik  • talk  19:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your opinion. I will give mine. Colin has spent well over a month sarcastically distorting everything I say. Either, he excels at missing the point or he has no interest in sincere communication. I think it is productive to inform him of that, and there is nothing uncivil about it. Maybe (I agree it is unlikely) if he is made aware that sarcastic strawman arguments don't contribute anything, he will stop making them. Life.temp (talk) 23:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Chomsky quote
The quote by Noam Chomsky under the "National Identity" section refers to political dissent from within, whereas the two quotes above his, in following the general direction of the article, refer to outside criticism of the U.S. Chomsky's point may be well-made, but it is out of place. Besides, American dissenters are hardly treated in the same manner as their Soviet counterparts were.

The quote should be removed or relocated (perhaps a new section could be created specifically to discuss anti-American sentiment within America). Jdtapaboc (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The section is about definitions and usage, which is also the subject of Chomsky's comment. The Chomsky refers to one aspect of the section topic. It doesn't need to be removed because other paragraphs refer to other aspects. The article does lack neutrality because it pushes the view that anti-Americanism is only found in other countries. Life.temp (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, the section is about perceptions of American identity and the use of anti-American sentiment as propaganda by non-Americans. The Chomsky quote refers to something altogether different: dissent from within and the labeling of dissenters, by Americans, as anti-American. Again, the Chomsky quote would be appropriate in a section devoted to anti-American sentiment within America, a section which we seem to agree is warranted. Jdtapaboc (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, my mistake. I was looking at the Chomsky reference in a diferent section. Life.temp (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-content-related edit request
Please update the  link just before the categories to United States topics. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Done (it is now unprotected also) henrik  • talk  11:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected
I've unprotected the article. While the issue hasn't been resolved yet, there hasn't been any more discussions for a few days and just waiting won't solve anything. But please don't start another edit war, m'kay? :-)

Lets discuss the issues paragraph by paragraph and get each of them resolved before moving on to the next. Deleting wide swaths will just be reverted, and will probably get the editors doing it blocked for disruption at some point.

Life.temp, I suggest you work on building up the parts of the article that you feel are lacking (I imagine that might cover tendencies to use anti-Americanism as an excuse to ignore criticisms, for example), assuming you can find sources for it. Let the History section be for a little while, if nothing else, as a good-faith building exercise. henrik • talk  08:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I began a paragraph by paragraph approach here . There wasn't any substantive response. My view is that the best way to improve this article is to pare it down, not build it up. I'm not sure why there is such resistance to the idea that less can be more. Improving a work by taking things out is pretty standard in the world of editing. Removing text can improve a work by making it more concise and to-the-point. There is no reason to refrain from deleting the parts of the article that 1) blatantly violate a number of core, mandatory policies, and 2) have been in such violation for weeks, and discussed repeatedly for weeks if not months. On a paragraph by paragraph basis, that means most of the "regional attitudes" and most of the "history" section should be deleted. As a whole, these sections create a NPOV problem by being one-sided. The degeneracy thesis section has little to do with the topic, although it might be valid as a separate article. Deleting this stuff is a classic case of improving an article by making it leaner. Removing the irrelevant, POV-pushing, plagiarized, and unsourced material will improve the article. It also is not my job to fix the problems created by the addition of material. Those defending problematic material have the duty to fix the problem. After the problems have been discussed, explained, and documented over and over and over, the material is deletable at any time.
 * Example. The citation of public opinion polls in this article is gross violation of many, many policies. Here's what I said about them over a month ago, when I tried to delete them: "What I deleted: opinion polls that did not describe themselves as polls of anti-Americanism, did not ask their subjects if they described themselves as anti-Americanism, did not ask if people have opposition or hostility to American culture, people, or policy, and in the case of the poll of Middle Easterners, was not even about the US. I also deleted extraneous information about attitudes of Arabs towards Jews and Christians. I made no effort to find other sources because there were no other sources: I specifically deleted cites of these irrelevant polls. Life.temp (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)" . The deletion was reverted, but no response was made to any of these points. This material can and should be deleted now. It violates core policies, and the issue was flagged in Talk well over a month ago. The other editors have made zero effort to acknowledge and address the violations, so the material can and should be deleted. That would improve the article by removing original research, misrepresentation, and bias.Life.temp (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a book on Al Qaida which documents widespead anti-American sentiments in the Middle East and supports the anti-Americanism shown in response to those polls. I will add this material presently. In my opinion the polls document overt anti-Americanism and should not be deleted. Colin4C (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One problem is that it is a hard term to define, and if different editors use different definitions I suspect they'll just talk past each other. It might be interesting if you both could provide your own definitions. What is anti-americanism in two or three sentences? What definition have sources used? henrik  • talk  11:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the term is fairly self-explanatory. Anti = Against. To be anti-American is to be against America or the Americans or the 'American way' - for whatever reason. I don't see any benefit in tying ourselves up in conceptual knots over a definition and qualifications or worrying whether it is a good or bad or politically correct thing or not to be anti-American. If we approach it in the first instance as a descriptive term used to describe acts and words directed against America we can save ourselves a conceptual headache. Colin4C (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Where would you draw the line between criticism of the US and anti-Americanism? henrik  • talk  18:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

(O/d) A good definition is the dual one from Guerlain, provided by AQ: "One systematic or essentialist, which is a form of prejudice targeting all Americans. The other refers to the way criticisms of the United States are labeled "anti-American" by supporters of U.S. policies in an ideological bid to discredit their opponents." The thing is, we can't just have Chomsky on the second point. People might go into O'Connor's references to find people who are close to the "propaganda position" and then we can improve that coverage.

On going forward, it's clear that mass deletions are not acceptable and they may indeed lead to disruption blocks. Relatedly, we can work paragraph to paragraph, but we can't redo the entire page in one go—e.g., nobody present six things and say "do it now or else." Present one thing at a time; or, better yet, go to the references (or to Google Scholar or wherever) and improve one thing yourself. I have just added the improved Degeneracy section. Fully sourced, good info. Per above, I'd like to move chronologically. Marskell (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I just added a short paragraph describing the criticism of the (lack of) definition and the confusion that has lead to, as described in the O'Connor paper (p. 89). Please feel free to improve the wording though :) henrik  • talk  20:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy, not Marksell, stipulates what is acceptable or not. It is this: Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. On that basis, most of this article is not acceptable. Policy also states that clear violations can be removed at anytime. However, at this point, we are not in a situation of "do it now or else." The situation is that very specific objections have been voiced for weeks going on months, and they have been ignored in favor of personal attacks. Somebody who refuses mediation by calling it "trollery" has no business complaining he hasn't been given chances. I'm certain that if I deleted the text on polls, Marksell would make this same complaint, even though the reasons for the deletion were first given here over a month ago. The new Degeneracy section addresses none of the major objections made to it. Marskell just ploughed ahead with what he wanted, then made a veiled threat about behavior that "may indeed lead to disruption blocks." What we have here is a majority (of 2) that is violating core policies on content, and an encyclopedia that doesn't enforce policies on content. Life.temp (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What we have is a single purpose editor on a crusade. I will continue to try to better source sections as has been done with Degeneracy. Marskell (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh well, I voice my complaints and you make personal attacks that assume bad faith and announce an intent to continue ignoring my concerns. What else is new? Why are you going to "continue to try to better source sections" when the primary objection is not merely about a lack of sources? Because you couldn't care less about anyone's objections. Life.temp (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

category:discrimination?
Why should this be under discrimination? its a movement! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadlyfish (talk • contribs) 08:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Point of View
I've been reading over past posts, and it seems one of the major problems is the fact that people who do not describe themselves as Anti-American are being described as such. In my view, there are two ways to use term, one being used positively (usually self-referential) and the other negatively (as an insult). When used positively, it is making a reference towards negative points of America (Imperialisation, foreign policy etc). Negatively it is used to insult, making a comment on the positive points of America (ie, Countries in the Middle East being descibed as Anti-American, contrary to the American way of life, etc). I think one of Life.Temp's main points is that this term is being used negatively in this article, descibing entire countries as Anti-American. I think that it should rather be used positively, to show that certain countries or fractions of countries have a self-descibed anti-americanism, an resentment of certain parts of America. Sorry if I that didn't sound clear. Iciac (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you are trying to say. I haven't heard anti-Americanism as being positive (except where anti-Americanism is). ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 04:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, make it self referential and externally referential then. Iciac (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if it's used as a positive, but I have heard people describe themselves as anti-American in certain contexts. They probably don't mean that they are irrational bigots, so it's intended to be neutral at least. I agree with the point of User talk:Iciac that any labeling in the narrative voice of Wikipedia cannot be negative. I do think it is OK for the negative labeling to be carefully discussed (not promoted), as an opinion found in reliable sources, as long it isn't given undue weight. At the moment, the negative labeling is ALL the weight in the history and regional attitudes section. Life.temp (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then bring other sources that cast it in a contrary light. Marskell (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's the best way to improve the article. Also, it's not my homework to fix the bias caused by someone else's material. Life.temp (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Teddy Roosevelt on "True Americanism" and "Hyphenated Americanism"
Theodore Roosevelt, "True Americanism", Forum Magazine, April 1894

Former President Theodore Roosevelt "Hyphenated Americanism" Speech (Excerpts), October 12, 1915

ΑΩ (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Neat stuff AQ! The speech is especially interesting—much of it still resonates. You can see the counter-point to supposed European refinement, mentioned in our article: "...where the man takes up his abode in Europe; where he becomes a second-rate European, because he is over-civilized, over-sensitive, over-refined, and has lost the hardihood and manly courage by which alone he can conquer in the keen struggle of our national life." He he.


 * It's a somewhat chauvinistic piece, but that can be forgiven a century later. It reminds me what a great intellect TR possessed. Marskell (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Truce
OK, in double-checking the steps of dispute resolution, I see "Truce." It's pretty general, but it does give me a specific idea. Please indicate your response below: It takes effect when the third party agrees. Life.temp (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I propose a truce between Marksell, Colin, and Life.temp. None of us will touch this article for 3 days. No editing, and also no commenting in Talk.
 * It allows some cool-down time.
 * It gives newcomers space to breathe. There are two new editors here, or were a few days ago, who probably find it hard to get a word in edgewise. Let's see what they produce when the discussion isn't dominated by us.
 * Life.temp: Agree
 * Marksell:
 * Colin:


 * Nice, a truce. It's not just new editors who are finding it hard to get a word in either, heh... ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 22:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Europe section
I have a few thoughts about the Europe section under "Regional attitudes". It does a relatively poor job at conveying the complexity of the US-European relationship in my opinion. Generally, European leaders have a relatively strong consensus that a strong and healthy friendship with the US is in the best interest of both Europe and the world.

The Iraq war of 2003 was a significant disagreement and lead to a large amount of press describing it as anti-Americanism (also coupled with quite a bit of Anti-French sentiment in the US) and is obviously the most visible case.

I question whether opinion polls showing declining approval ratings in recent should really be mentioned. One could argue that there is a very good reason for that (the Iraq failure), and it is mirrored by a corresponding decline in internal American polls towards its own administration.

But almost completely absent is the left/communistic political tradition, which is still going strong. I think this is the best representative of "true" anti-Americanism in Europe (being "fundamentally opposed to parts of US culture")

I'll attempt to put together a few changed paragraphs among these lines and will post them here for review in the coming days. Any feedback or thoughts is of course welcome. henrik • talk  20:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * With the timeline/history basis the whole regional attitudes section needs to be rethought. Colin, for instance, built up a well-referenced section on Latin America, but it will need to be split up into 19th, early-20th, late-20th and so on for the timeline. I was staring at it tonight wondering how best to do the surgery...


 * I very much agree that this shouldn't be too much about post-Iraq polls. The focus on Bush overwhelmes so much of the history on the topic in Europe. Let's see what you come up with. Marskell (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not tenable to call anyone with a non-capitalist political philosophy "anti-American," even though that could be described as opposition to American culture.


 * Well, that's not quite what I propose. Obviously any criticism would be sourced, and not more general than what seems to be the prevailing view. But you can hardly disagree that there is significant and persistent criticism of the US among people with a non-capitalist political view. henrik  • talk  21:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there a good reason we are proceeding with a timeline approach when there is an explicit lack of consensus for a timeline approach? (Note that calling me names isn't a reason.) Life.temp (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't think of a better way to structure any article that traverses time. Biographies begin with birth and end with death. An article on a war begins with the causes and ends with the aftermath. If this article were to become a mere definition of anti-Americanism, then there would be no need for a timeline, but presumably the intent here is to give both a definition as well as a historical backdrop and evolution of meaning. Further complicating structuring is that a regional delineation is also absolutely necessary (including an as yet nonexistent but vital section on anti-Americanism within America). The article seems to currently deal with this by having both timelines within regions and regions within the main timeline. This is pretty messy, but what else can be done? Jdtapaboc (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You are the only one objecting to the timeline approach—but then, you are objecting to everything. I don't see a lack of consensus. In any case, let's see what Henrik can work up. Marskell (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You haven't really provided any alternative approaches though. henrik  • talk  21:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I presume that's directed at Life.temp and I agree. If you reject timeline, themes, and regions, how exactly are we supposed to organize the article? Per above with Henrik, timeline is simplest. Marskell (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If somebody is objecting (with reasons), there is a lack of consensus. I gave my alternative approach here: "A better structure would be to choose a few choice examples featuring debate about the applicability of the term, describe both sides, and leave it at that." This, after spending considerable time explaining the reasons I objected to Marksell's approach, in the "Framing" section above . Did Marksell (or anyone) address those reasons? Of course not. Life.temp (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How would that structure address the two-and-a-half centuries that sources have discussed vis-a-vis the term? Marskell (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is significant and persistent criticism of everything; the US is no exception. I disagree that it is neutral to call that anti-Americanism. Calling something anti-American is an opinion, generally (but not universally) negative. It suggests prejudice. A documented part of the debate is that the term is propaganda; we implicitly take sides in that debate when we ignore that concern, as we do throughout the "History" and "Regional Attitudes" sections. The label is particularly not neutral when it is applied to people who don't accept the label for themselves, as is the case when it is sweepingly applied to whole cultures such as "the French", Japan, the Middle East and Latin America. The problem is particularly difficult for Wikipedia when it involves the cultural bias of the encyclopedia: non-English speaking people are obviously not equally represented in an English-language wiki. Does anybody really think there would be consensus about the regional attitudes section if people from those regions were equally represented here? I've made these points endlessly, which Marksell thinks is grounds, not to think about it, but to call it a "crusade," "trolling," "sock-puppetry," "vandalism" etc. The one thing he hasn't done is address the points. When writing about cultures that can't represent themselves here, extra sensitivity to neutrality is required. Life.temp (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets avoid personal attacks on wikipedia editors please and talk about the issues. And just to say that if a community really hated America, being a 'proud anti-American' would be a term of praise rather than being pejorative. E.g when Mexico lost virtually half its territory to the USA it was perfectly understandable that a lot of the people there adopted anti-American attitudes. If the American army came and grabbed half your territory and killed a lot of your citizens then 'pro-Americanism' would be the pejorative term rather than the reverse. Hopefully the copy of Rubin and Colp's history of anti-Americanism I ordered will arrive soon so I can give chapter and verse refs. Colin4C (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If a community values "being a proud anti-American", it should be easy to document the community saying that. If they don't say it, it is not our place to say it for them. Life.temp (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I just added a short summary from Rubin, Colin, which you might find interesting. I think that Korean film info maybe over-specific and could be shortened.
 * I am going to work on the Ideolgy bit next. Marskell (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw the film last night and thought of this article... I'm not the cleverest person in the world but even I could see the broad anti-American shafts in a film in which the Yanks propose to blanket Seoul with "Agent Yellow" in order to get rid of a mutant monster which they themselves were responsible for creating. Colin4C (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Life.temp has just deleted everything I wrote without stating his objections here on the talk page. I have therefore restored the valid referenced material on anti-Americanism in popular culture in Korea. Colin4C (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the material he deleted:
 * The recent Korean monster film The Host (2006) has been described as anti-American. The film was in part inspired by an incident in 2000 in which a mortician working for the U.S. military in Seoul dumped a large amount of formaldehyde down the drain. In the film the dumped chemicals engender a horrible mutated monster from the river which menaces the inhabitants of Seoul. The American military situated in South Korea is portrayed as uncaring about the effects their activities have on the locals. The chemical agent used by the American military to combat the monster in the end, named "Agent Yellow" in a thinly-veiled reference to Agent Orange was also used to satirical effect. The director, Bong Joon-ho, commented on the issue: "It's a stretch to simplify The Host as an anti-American film, but there is certainly a metaphor and political commentary about the U.S." Because of its themes that can be seen as critical of the United States, the film was actually lauded by North Korean authorities, a rarity for a South Korean blockbuster film. Colin4C (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As the sources indicate Anti-Americanism is a real thing happening in the world of reality with real implications about public policy (i.e. the relationship between North and South Korea). Hiding our heads in sand whilst listening to Fox News turned up loud on our earphones will not make anti-Americanism dissapear. Neither will censoring material on it in the wikipedia help. It is out there. Believe it. The wikipedia should not be censored.Colin4C (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to say I think the case for including "The Host" as an example of AA seems rather weak. Its a bit hard to say for sure though, because several of the refs doesn't work! But if it only includes "themes that can be seen as critical of the US", the doesn't mean it should be in this article. We shouldn't cheapen the expression by including everything vaguely critical of the US. (the reuters and the yonhapnews.co.kr refs doesn't work for me, could you please give working URLs?)


 * Also, Colin, please try to avoid weasel wording. When you want the text to express a view, it should be attributed to someone. henrik  • talk  14:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To elaborate just a little bit, I think a better direction to take this article is to make it into a discussion of the concept of anti-Americanism rather than a catalog of criticism against the U.S. henrik  • talk  14:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The concept of anti-Americanism is just an empty formula. Please let's write about what happens in the real world. Anti-Americanism has a geneaology and a history. For instance in the Korean film above 'Agent Yellow' is obviously an allusion to Agent Orange used to defoliate the jungles in the Vietnam War, which latter event, in my personal recollection provoked protests directed at the American Embassy in Grovesnor Square, London and anti-American protests world-wide. Colin4C (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It was quite interesting to follow the evolution of your reply :) My thought is that there are probably better places to follow every detail of what happens in the "real world" than an encyclopedia article. We should try to capture major trends and thoughts here, not details (and to reply to one of your intermediate edits: No, you could hardly call 9/11 or bin Laden a detail. But a 2006 Korean movie probably is one, at least in my mind). Also, for this and other reasons, I think we should strongly prefer high quality scholarly sources on this article. henrik  • talk  15:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, you changed it again :)


 * My reply to that is: So lets write about Agent Orange and the Vietnam War and the protests and sentiments it led to instead of a Korean movie. henrik  • talk  15:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I just learnt something from the wikipedia! Looking at the Agent Orange page it seems that it was (secretly) used in Korea as well - during the Korean War. Now I understand the film a bit better...One is never too old to learn...Colin4C (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with this: "To elaborate just a little bit, I think a better direction to take this article is to make it into a discussion of the concept of anti-Americanism rather than a catalog of criticism against the U.S." I'm inclined to say the "Definitions and Usage" section should be the main body of the article, as it outlines the concept and gives a roughly balanced view of the debate about it. Specific accusations of anti-Americanism should be added with a careful eye for neutrality and equal weight. This is particularly important when whole cultures are labeled as anti-American. Life.temp (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia is not a dictionary. That is OFFICIAL policy: Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. Colin4C (talk) A definition of a word is just an empty formula, which tells us nothing about the real world. This has been known since the birth of empirical science and philosophy in the 16th century. Aristotle and scholastic philosophy are dead. Lets not revive them here. 10:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Tbilisi is not Europe and should not be mentioned in this section. Erikhansson1 (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Degeneracy Thesis
Should the Degeneracy Thesis section be shortened or deleted? Note that this article is 70k long (the main body is around 35k). Wikipedia recommends 30k to 50k as a maximum 23:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Shorten (or delete). It's a curious piece of intellectual thought from 200 years ago that is peripheral to the article. It has little to do with the topic today; the Degeneracy thesis dates from 1770 and applied to all of the New World (before the USA existed). Only two historians have published interpretations of it as a kind of anti-Americanism (Ceaser and Roger...all the other sources are indirect refs of those two). An opinion found in only two reliable sources, on a topic borderline related to the article subject, in an article that already meets the recommended length. Six paragraphs is far too much. The degeneracy thesis is worth its own article, so a spinoff and a brief link here would also be an appropriate solution. Life.temp (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Expand. I think the Degeneracy thesis is fascinating. I would like to know more about it, so I think this section should be expanded. Colin4C (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As we work through the article the relative weight needed for each section will become more clear; for instance, the two paragraphs on evolution of the thesis might be shuffled out elsewhere. The section is not long and I fail to see how it serves the reader to cut for the sake of cutting it. (This is becoming something of a vendetta.) At 33k readable prose the article does not exceed any guidelines. Marskell (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree. As the article develops, we'll see what the need is for that section, perhaps leaving it or trimming it here and developing it into an article of its own. At least everybody seems to agree that it is an interesting piece of history. henrik  • talk  21:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, it is 35k of readable prose, which is still in the danger zone of readability. The guideline is 30-50k. Life.temp (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that the section on the Degeneracy Thesis should remain on the Anti-Americanism page, as it is quite interesting and gives an early history of anti-americanism and societys thoughts on the matter at the time. This section is one that should be valued, and not deleted. Perhaps it would be better to expand on this section and create a seperate page for it, but at the very least, a summary of the section should be left on the main page, so that readers will have the chance to view it. The defining criteria for a section is quality, not quantity, and in relation to this criteria, the size of the article does not matter, even if it is defined by Wikipedia. 122.106.39.177 (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Degeneracy Thesis: Rationale for Deletion
The main problem with this section is that it isn't about the United States. The degeneracy theory is about the physical nature of the New World. It also gives severely undue weight to the theory of two people. The section provides exactly two individuals who suggest calling the degeneracy theories anti-American: James Ceaser and Philippe Roger. One theory, not about anti-Americanism in any modern sense, vaguely interpreted as anti-americanism by two people, doesn't merit a five paragraph section. Here is what Ceaser actually says about this theory: It can be conceived of as a kind of prehistory of anti-Americanism, since it occurred mostly before the founding of the United States and referred not just to this country but to all of the New World. The source itself says it is not about the USA and the strongest connection is that "it can be conceived as a kind of pre-history." The section also has the usual misrepresentation, presentation of opinion as fact, lack of sourcing, and bias. It begins with weasel words "According to critics..." by which it really means "two critics." How do we know this interpretation of critics is anything but fringe theory? Using the third source, Sophie Meunier, is misleading because the source she gives in her paper is just Philippe Roger (the Meunir paper itself appears to be an unpublished.)

James Ceaser identifies the Comte de Buffon, a leading French naturalist, as the originator of the theory, but Dutchman Cornelius de Pauw, court philosopher to Frederick II of Prussia became its leading proponent.[4] In 1768, de Pauw described America as "degenerate or monstrous" colonies and argued that, "the weakest European could crush them with ease."[26] The great French writer Voltaire joined Buffon and others in making the argument.[25]

Same problems here. The source for the Voltaire claim is the same quote in the same paper by Meunir--that actually has Roger as its source. We still have exactly two critics backing all of this. (The source is also misrepresented, as it doesn't present Voltaire as saying anything about the New World being "degenerate or monstrous" or that "the weakest European could crush them with ease." It merely says he attempted to use science to show the New World was inferior.)

The theory was extended to argue that the natural environment of the United States would prevent it from ever producing true culture. Paraphrasing de Pauw, the French Encyclopedist Abbé Raynal wrote, "America has not yet produced a good poet, an able mathematician, one man of genius in a single art or a single science."[27] (So virulent was Raynal's antipathy that his book was suppressed by the French monarchy.) The theory was debated and rejected by early American thinkers such as Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson; Jefferson, in his Notes on the State of Virginia (1781), provided a detailed rebuttal of de Buffon.[4]

This has zilch to do with anti-Americanism. It is probably true that, in 1770, America had not produced a great poet, mathematician, artist or scientist. Who can name one? Thomas Jefferson's rebuttal, cited in the article, mostly doesn't dispute the claim, arguing instead that America just hadn't existed long enough to produce greatness.

Bill Grantham, reviewing Philippe Roger, suggests that the idea of degeneracy posited a symbolic, as well as a scientific America, that would evolve beyond the original thesis.

This is a misrepresentation. Grantham describes that as Roger's view, as part of his review of Roger's book, A Geneology of anti-Americanism (2002). It's the same book previously cited in this section, and the same book cited by Meunir in the unpublished paper previously cited in this section. We still have exactly two critics who have suggested that degeneracy theories be considered a "kind of pre-history" of anti-Americanism. Two opinons wouldn't come close to being significant, even if their subject were squarely focussed on anti-Americanism, which it isn't.

The last paragraph comes entirely from the same Ceaser article that has now been used as a source 4 times in this section. This section is based entirely on two sources: one article by Ceaser and one book by Roger. The other sources, Grantham and Meunir, are just indirect references to those two sources. We are using this article as platform to promote a minority view. It needs to be deleted. Life.temp (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your vandalism. Marskell (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I hate to throw policy in your face, as I'm sure you already know this, but Life.temp's actions are hardly vandalism. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism.". You disagree on what the article should contain. Now, I haven't been here from the start, but Life.temp's current behaviour doesn't strike me as bad faith efforts to compromise the encyclopedia. He's explained above why he doesn't think that section should be in the article. It would be better to refute his arguments than calling it vandalism. henrik  • talk  12:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not consider gutting an entire section good faith. I simply don't. It's sourced, it's relevant, and it required work on my part. I consider it vandalism. We have argued with Life.temp repeatedly. He has made no attempt to improve sections; he has brought no sources of his own. His efforts at improvement have consisted of cutting sections he doesn't like whenever the mood strikes. The only thing he has advocated leaving is Chomsky, so the POV is clear. No matter how many sources I bring for that section he's going to come up with logical gymnastics to try to get it off the page.


 * As for the points above, nowhere in policy does it say that some minimum number of academics must have commented on something for it to be notable. JSTOR shows an academic reference to the "degeneracy thesis" as early as 1974 (if I can get a hold of it, I will try to add it). It's not a "fringe theory" or a "minority point of view"—two new failures of comprehension on Life.temp's part. It's an interesting piece of history that was obviously widely debated in early America; perfectly legitimate for inclusion. Marskell (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Reasons given for assuming the removal is bad faith: none. Reasons given for why the section doesn't belong: many (above and elsewhere). You haven't argued with me, in the sense of giving reasons, at all. You've made personal attacks and contradicted conclusions, just as you do above. Reasons given that this article is improved by reduction: much of it violates core policies on neutrality, on negative descriptive of living cultures and people, original research, and UNDUE WEIGHT. Not only does removing junk remove biased text, it simultaneously addresses the problem of undue weight. The repetition of the assumption that only edits that add material are constructive, while those that remove it are disruptive, is getting tiresome. It's ungrounded in logic or policy. Editing by removal is just as valid as editing by addition.
 * Regarding the Degeneracy Theory, calling my reasons "logical gymnastics" is just another attack on a person where an attack on his idea is required. You misconstrued the objection: it is not the degeneracy that seems to be a fringe theory (although that's possible), but the interpretation of it as a "kind of prehistory of anti-Americanism." That interpretation exists in one article and one book. Period. It is not even described by its proponents as being squarely related to our topic. There are hundreds of thousands of political scientists and historians in the world, and you want to give an interpretation advanced by two of them a five paragraph section of its own in an article which barely relates to that interpretation. I agree it is in an interesting piece of history: put it in its own article and created a link to it. Life.temp (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that a only a few sources have been given is not necessarily a problem in itself. As long as there are scholarly sources that describe it as proto-AA, and we don't have any sources contradicting that WP:FRINGE is not really applicable. As for your criticism that it is given too much weight, that can be fixed by improving and expanding the rest of the article too. henrik  • talk  20:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Since initially replying, I have added two more sources describing the thesis and foregrounding its importance to early Euro-American hostility. Looking through JSTOR a little, there is a small but respectable corpus on this topic. It clearly involves prejudice towards the United States that is of historical interest and has been described by academics vis-a-vis the term anti-Americanism. I agree with Henrik that "improving and expanding the rest of the article" is the larger point. I would like to source other sections in the same way. Marskell (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Giving it a 5 paragraph section of its own presents it as very notable. We should not make it seem more notable than it is. The theory that degeneracy theories are anti-American has been suggested in exactly two places. I'm not sure how expanding the rest of the article addresses the undue weight problem. Do you mean we should make the article so long, a five-paragraph section for a minor theory seems proportional? I think the more standard, Wikipedian approach, is to create a separate article, mention that briefly here, and link to it. As I've said, it's simply not valid to equate improving the article with expanding it. Particularly, when there is no agreement on what the article is really about. As it stands, George W. Bush fits this article's definition of anti-American. Can I expand the article by describing the President's anti-Americanism? Life.temp (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There are three papers that situate the thesis in terms of anti-Americanism. Two that describe the idea as clear Euro hostility towards America without specifically mentioning AA. And two primary sources with obvious bigotry expressed. In short, it is a robustly sourced section.
 * But, as feared, you are going to want to remove even after other people work to improve and properly source the article. (I guess that should have been expected.) Anyway, carry on shifting goalposts. I'll carry on sourcing the article. Once the page becomes more coherent, the exact weight needed for this section will become more clear. Marskell (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It would help if you explained what you are talking about. There are two original interpretations of the degeneracy thesis as "a kind of pre-history of anti-Americanism"--Ceaser and Roger. That's it, and I don't mean that's it in the article. I mean, that's all there is in the world, as far as I can tell. There are no sources that describe "hostility" toward America in the context of this article, since the USA didn't exist at that time. Nor are any of these opinions clear hostility toward anything in the context of the 1700's. The rest of what I deleted was wrongly sourced. For example, you used a book review of Roger as an original, third, source of Roger's ideas. The book reviewer didn't say what you said he did. The proposal that American hadn't produced a great poet in 1770 doesn't support the theory that people degenerated after arrival in America. And so on. Life.temp (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be suggesting that because Grantham and Munier rely, in part, on Roger and Ceaser they don't count as sources themselves. Nothing in policy supports you on that. Those are four sources that describe the concept vis-a-vis the term AA. There are two other sources that provide background on the thesis with scholarship extending back to at least the 1970s. Again, it's a robustly sourced section and all you're trying to do is shift goalposts to gut the article. Marskell (talk) 15:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sources for what? Grantham doesn't say the degeneracy thesis was anti-Americanism. He is writing a book review, and merely reports what Roger says. You have an entire paragraph that factually misrepresents Grantham as a source calling something anti-American. You misrepresent him as saying what is actually said by Roger. Then, you use Grantham--a book reviewer--as a third source so you can call the section "robustly sourced." Meunir's article--apparently an unpublished paper--doesn't give any independent opinions about Voltaire or the alleged evidence of the degeneracy thesis. You are essentially saying "She says Roger says..." and then calling that a fourth source. The other sources either don't support what is in the text, or are inaccessible (e.g the JSTOR). Life.temp (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I tweaked the sentence to make clear Grantham is quoting Roger. Beyond that you have identified no problems with the sourcing. We are free to use book reviews. We are free to use JSTOR papers. Meunier's is a seminar paper and she's well-published elsewhere. Goldstein and Danzer provide ample background on the thesis. The sources do support what is in text. So keep on talking but I'm done here. Marskell (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are "done here" then there is not much reason to continue talking. I will simply restore the my compromise version, which keeps the section but streamlines it to a basic overview, and clarifies that this interpretation is not widespread. If you want to actually discuss it, let me know. Life.temp (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I found the Degeneracy section to be just plain dumb, at least in this context. I admire your work on the section, which is well-written, and the subject is certainly valuable as a relic of pseudo-science, but I wouldn't include it in an article on anti-Americanism. As an American, I didn't find it offensive at all, and I cannot imagine that anyone would. It serves as little more than an incitement to giggle. Jdtapaboc (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh certainly, the thesis itself is bonkers. (Apparently some advocated that the Americas had emerged from the Flood later than the Old World and this was the main climatic problem...) But we don't judge inclusion here on whether a modern American is offended. Sources situate it as an early prejudice toward the country that early Americans saw as hostility (however weird it seems in retrospect) and thus so can we. Marskell (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is fine as a backdrop to the history of AA. It can be used as an illustration that criticism towards the New World, both rational and irrational has changed over the times. Early Americans seem to have thought it a thesis worth refuting. And as Marskell says, we're here to report on what sources state, not to advocate what we personally find believable. henrik  • talk  20:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the article could be structured in a way that clearly set Degeneracy as a backdrop/precursor to AA. The order is there, but the structure is not; the whole page reads like a jumbled hodgepodge of ideas at present. Maybe it's just me?


 * I'd also like to see a section devoted to anti-Americanism within America, as I mentioned above under "Chomsky quote." Jdtapaboc (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The hodgepodge thing has been a problem. I have organized it as a rough chronology today. At least now we're not jumping to Anti-Globalization and then jumping back to the early 20th century etc. On your last point, I would suggest starting a section or doing something up in your sandbox. Might want to do some Google scholar searches on McCarythism and "unamerican" to see if contemporary uses of anti-American have been compared. Marskell (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Marksell
 * I deleted the section. You accused me of gutting and reverted.
 * I compromised by shortening the section. I took out two paragraphs and merged the last and the first, leaving the basics. You accused me of gutting and reverted.
 * I just made an edit not aimed at removal, but mainly at clarifying what I think is important. It removed one complete sentence, which was trivial and obvious POV: "The sense of a cocksure character amongst Americans continued throughout the nineteenth century." You reverted my edits (and two intermediate edits by someone else), without explanation.

You've spent almost two months berating editors for thinking they can improve the article by taking things out. Now you are reverting minor edits not based on removing text, and doing it without explanation.

Lord Marksell, will you tell your humble subjects what editing you allow in your domain? Life.temp (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks and sarcastic remarks are against wikipedia policy. Colin4C (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The constant low level sniping from everybody on this talk page isn't helping. All involved need to make an effort to treat each other with more respect. Pretty much every single comment I've seen here take a swipe at the opposition. It's been a long time since I saw a more infected talk page. Seriously, stop it before I block the lot of you.


 * I have undone Marskell's revert for now, pending an explanation on what he found problematic with them. henrik  • talk  11:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Marksell reverted much of it, again. Henrik, if I seem frustrated/angry it's because there's nothing I can do. I'm not allowed to edit the article, and I'm not listened to in Talk. If I'm blocked, I'm not allowed to edit the article and I'm not listened to in Talk. What difference does anything make?
 * Before you came to this article, I requested formal mediation. Marksell refused. I requested arbitration. Marksell argued against it. I requested informal mediation. Colin shredded it and was warned for personal attacks. I request a Third Opinion. Colin flamed him when he suggested the article could be shortened. Now I've made an RfC. Does it look like Colin is taking it seriously?
 * So now I don't seem very committed to dispute resolution. What steps of dispute resolution are left?
 * Your "solution" is tell me I shouldn't want what I want. I shouldn't think the article is improved by reduction. That's not a solution. Life.temp (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the first paragraph of this section: It should give the sources of the interpretation of anti-Americanism. The basis for this entire section is found in two reliable sources: Ceaser and Roger. They are the ones who interpret these kooky 18th century theories as anti-Americanism. We wouldn't spend four paragraphs developing a Noam Chomsky opinion, and not mention Chomsky until the fifth paragraph. The same is true of Roger and Ceaser. The fact that only two historians have advanced this interpretation is germane. We don't want to mislead readers into thinking it is a consensus or even majority view among historians. Life.temp (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Marksell, the link I can see that you added is this. The abstract mentions neither anti-Americanism nor the Degeneracy Thesis. Regardless of that, the normal place to identify the authors of a theory is when they are first cited, which means in the first paragraph in the case of Ceaser and Roger. They are also the main sources whose ideas the section develops in subsequent paragraphs. Life.temp (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted your edit which removed the explicit attribution of the opinion to its source (O'Connor). Please avoid giving opinions, sourced or not, in Wikipedia's narrative voice. It is not, and should not be, an offical Wikipedia position that "A more generalized hostility towards the United States developed in Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, with the view that the country was culturally backward." That is an interpretation, and needs to be specified as such. Life.temp (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)