Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Americanism


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * This AfD was malformed and never transcluded. It is now listed.  нмŵוτн τ  18:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This article consists primarily of 1) a dictionary definition which is so vague, it doesn't clearly identify a coherent phenomenon, 2) links to various musings and free-associations on the meaning of the term, 3) links to polemics using the term. The article itself, in the lead, suggests that the term has no meanigful applicability because it is so vague. Then it ignores that point, and goes on to produce a hodge-podge of interpretations. An encyclopedia article needs to be more than report on the inconsistent interpretations and usage of a term.

The problem in writing about this term is evident in the amount of weasel-wording it uses. Virtually the entire article is written in the passive voice, e.g. "It has been suggested that anti-Americanism is...." Followed by something like "It has been countered that anti-Americanism is...." Generally, no reason is given for why those particular suggestions are more important or accurate than any others, leaving a wide-open door for perceived-POV-pushing. This is no way to write an article, but it is unavoidable with this topic.

An encylopedia entry needs to be on a well-defined topic. This one isn't. The result is a rambling usage guide for a controversial term. That's not encyclopedic. Bsharvy (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a great article and should not be deleted. Nobody is going to think EVERY article is a "well-defined" topic.  Lots of physicists don't think that TIME is a well-defined topic!  Just because You or Other people don't like it doesn't mean it has to be deleted.  It's informative, well-written.   it's a word that is in CONSTANT USAGE.
 * It doesn't use weasel words - it cites sources properly and adequately. BriEnBest (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Bsharvy says it all. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Wikipedia's deletion policy states that any article that can be improved should be improved. While this article may be riddled with problems, I fail to see how it is completely beyond hope. Wikipedia has articles for other types of racism such as Anti-Japanese sentiment and Islamophobia, so it should definately have one for Anti-Americanism. I suggest we edit and improve the current one, rather than delete it and create a completely new one. I also suggest that we remove it from the "nominated for deletion" page, since deleting it would be pointless and doesn't need to be considered as an option.Catgirl the Crazy (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - the ONLY possible reason for deletion that could be satisfied is "content not suitable for an encyclopaedia", and frankly, the topic clearly IS suitable for an encyclopaedia. Yes it needs work done to it, but that work CAN be done, and the article shouldn't be deleted simply because you don't like it. Per the deletion policy page, Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page, and If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. The article documents a worldwide sentiment, and that in itself is grounds for the article to exist. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete
 * Catgirl's suggestion that anti-Americanism is like racism is exactly why this article is hopeless. I don't think anti-Americanism is like racism or bigotry at all, and neither do any of the people I know who self-identify as anti-American. Neither do some prominent commentators, like Noam Chomsky (he says the opposite, that the label denotes bigotry against those who criticize US policies). So: to say anti-Americanism is bigotry is POV-pushing. To say anti-Americanism is not bigotry is POV-pushing. There is nothing that can be said that isn't POV-pushing. The only non-POV apporach is a usage guide, and that is not encyclopedic.
 * As for Mattbuck's comment: What "worldwide sentiment" does it document? Sentiment about the meaning of the term? That makes the article an elaborate dictionary entry: not encyclopedic. Sentiment about a phenomenon? What phenomenon? Nobody agrees.
 * I've worked on several controversial articles, but none of them had this one's main problem. When I worked on the Bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki article, it was very heated, edit wars, etc. BUT: everybody knew what the bombings were. Nobody can agree on what phenomenon we are talking about when we talk about anti-Americanism. It simply isn't a term that denotes anything precisely. Disagreeing with the war in Iraq is called anti-American, so is wanting to commit mass genocide against Americans, so is objecting to a Starbucks replacing a family-run cafe in Paris. There is nothing coherent here. Bsharvy (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, as an editor, instead of deleting the article, you should write a section on how "anti-americanism" is bigotry. That would improve the article.  BriEnBest (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep
 * There are several academic books and articles on the phenomenon of 'anti-Americanism' therefore it is an encyclopediac topic. See for instance:



If this article is bad editors are at liberty to improve it rather than deleting it. Just because a notion eludes certain editors understanding is no reason to delete the article on it. I don't understand quantum physics but that is no reason to delete the wikipedia article on it. Colin4C (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wow, Bsharvy really says it all. In his nom & especially in his deletion rationale.  нмŵוτн τ  18:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So all the above academic articles and books are on a subject that doesn't really exist? Colin4C (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what point that list is supposed to make. The problem isn't that "anti-Americanism" never refers to anything; the problem is that refers to just about anything--something racist, something reasonable, political dissent, terrorism, Burger King.... Pasting a list of article names which contain the term "anti-Americanism" (and many which don't) doesn't advance the discussion. I daresay many deleted articles have topics which appear in the titles of papers. Bsharvy (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You daresay that many deleted articles have topics which appear in the titles of papers? Could you, say, point to a few? Because having articles written on the subject is almost the definition of what WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V demand. You know, we haven't deleted abortion, even with claims that it's racist, reasonable, a show of political dissent, and terrorism... though I don't know that abortion has ever been accused of being Burger King.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep; that's a easy way to deal with controversy, just delete. It's a real topic, very notable, very citable, as shown above from Reliable Sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess I wasn't clear, but I'm not sure how to be clearer. Anti-Americanism is not like abortion, because everybody knows what abortion is (in a non-scientific sense). The disagreements don't center on what is abortion. In contrast, every assertion of what is anti-Americanism constitutes POV-pushing. That is why the article never actually says what is anti-Americanism, other than quoting one dictionary. That is why almost every single claim the article makes about anti-Americanism must be in weasel words: "It has been suggested that anti-Americanism is....". If the editors cannot say, in their own words, what their topic is, they cannot write an article about it.
 * Producing a list of article titles containing the term "anti-Americanism" doesn't address these points. (Also, half the articles in that list don't contain "anti-Americanism" at all; it would be nice if people put a little effort into the discussion.) Bsharvy (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So it's a difficult article. So what. We have an article on anti-Semitism; should we delete that because people don't agree on what that means? Not every assertion about what anti-Americanism is POV-pushing; I have real trouble with the thinking patterns of anyone who asserts that proposing genocide against Americans is not anti-Americanism. Start with what's clearly defined as anti-Americanism and work your way out.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The distinction is clear; there is that which you can say objectively about Anti-Americanism, which amounts to a dictionary definition; and there's the subjective stuff ("opinions are like assholes, etc.") which makes this article a soapbox magnet. Incidentally, the same holds for much of WP articles on anti-Semitism, especially New anti-Semitism, which I would also vote to delete. --Marvin Diode (talk) 11:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Bottom line is: there's ZERO reason to delete this article.  And the reason that people are TRYING to delete it is because they are PREJUDICED AGAINST IT.  And it should be obvious, given what the article actually is.  IS THE "TERRORISM" ARTICLE GOING TO BE DELETED AS WELL?  NO.  But if militant muslims used wikipedia as much as americans did, I bet it would be.  That proves that this article is subject to deletion BECAUSE OF PREJUDICE.  I'm not going to sit by and let (maybe masses) of prejudiced people delete RANDOM articles JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE THEM!


 * That is THE ONLY major issue with WIKI websites - is that masses of prejudiced or stupid people (Can I say that I'm not implying that anyone is prejudiced or stupid, and be believed, because BSHARVY does have some really good points - but I think she should edit the article, not delete it... ) can get perfectly informative, or ecyclopediatric articles CHANGED wrongfully or DELETED altogether, based on their VOTES. WIKI is NOT a democracy - it is DEFINED as a community where it's decisions are based on DISCUSSION.  Deleting this article WILL BE considered an act of vandalism.  BriEnBest (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi BriEnBest, please be civil and assume good faith in your posts. You are right - wikipedia is NOT a democracy, it is not based on votes, it is based on consensus relative to the guidelines of wikipedia. If there is not a good reason to delete, it will not be deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"If the editors cannot say, in their own words, what their topic is, they cannot write an article about it." If some editors could write a description that's complete and not POV, this would settled. It's true, the editors haven't ever said "in their own words" what anti-americanism is. Rachel63 (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * According to this logic the wikipedia article on atoms should also be deleted. According to physicists the latter are either particles or waves or maybe both, depending on whether they are being observed or not: nobody is sure, not Bohr, Planck or Einstein and least of all wikipedia editors. Colin4C (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article on atoms you cited begins with three in-depth paragraphs that neutrally describe what an atom is, written in editors' own words. It's neutrality is not limited to quoting the dictionary. The article on anti-Americanism never does that, and for good reason. The majority of the term's usage is an interpretation. It is an interpretation to say the French want to limit American influence because they dislike America. It is an interpretation to say people oppose the Iraq war because of hostility toward America. It may be objective to say terrorism against Americans is anti-Americanism. But is any editor willing to say, in the article, which claims of anti-Americanism are objectively grounded and which are not? No, because that would be POV-pushing. Nobody can write a neutral, complete description of anti-Americanism and that means nobody can a neutral article on it. Bsharvy (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost all so called 'facts' about anything in the universe are in reality interpretations. As science progresses the old supposed 'facts' (in 'reality' crusty old interpretations way past their sell by date) are either discarded or re-interpreted. Newton gives way to Einstein. Einstein gives way to the Quantum theorists. As Descartes demonstrated the only thing we can really be certain of is 'I think therefore I am' = Cogito ergo sum. All the rest is supposition and theory which constantly keeps getting changed. There are no 'facts' just differing interpretations of that unknowable entity: 'the thing in itself'. Colin4C (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't really compare a concrete object with an abstract concept. This bears no weight, and is irrelevant.  нмŵוτн τ  17:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So you grant that 'Anti-Americanism' is a concept? But one that it is not allowable for the wikipedia editors to allude to or examine or analyse? Like the Chinese wikipedia doesn't allow any mention of the concept of 'democracy'. A 'thought crime' maybe? Thinking is Verboten. Just obey. Colin4C (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Anti-Americanism is clearly a form of bigory (in my opinion, mainly because hating a group is bigotry). Bigotry has an article, and this article is listed on it. None of those articles in that list violate Wikipedia guidelines on what kind of article is to be created. The article needs help on being rewritten or improved (such as Anti-Americanism not being a form of Americanophobia, but Anti-French sentiment is a form of Francophobia, how contridictory is that?). Regardless, just because you do not like the idea of the article does not merit whether or not the article should stay. It is very much citable with reliable sources (didn't say all of them were). Just because the article is poorly written does not mean it needs to be deleted, just rewritten or improved as stated before. IronCrow (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- This is a real topic with real sources...  and is a very notable subject, especially in this period of time. That in itself makes it encyclopedic. Also, the sections on regional attitudes is very informative. I think that the article does need to be tweaked a little bit (for POV, make more concise, etc), but there is no reason to delete.Rigby27 (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.