Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29

File:Poster35.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Poster35.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Philippines

The BBC Poll surveyed the also the Philippines and that country is, acc. to the survey, ostensibly 82% pro-US. But the interesting part is the sample of the people they surveyed there in the Philippines: "In the Philippines the survey was conducted in the National Capital Region, representing 27% of the total urban adult population." (Quoted from the linked source, page 25) Looking at the other countries, only in the Philippines they chose such a limited area - even if it contained 27% of the local adult population. They left out Visayas and Mindanao. (Especially leaving out Mindanao is delicate since it has a significant Muslim population there.) Don't you think, that bias should be mentioned in the article? -- 49.145.99.175 (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

In principal, I agree with you that statistics must be presented carefully. But the Philippines is not the only country that this poll was surveyed in urban area. A quote from the source: "In Azerbaijan, Brazil, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, the Philippines, Thailand and Turkey urban samples were used." PBJT (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Where is the mention to Communist Anti-Americanism?

The Communist (Soviet, Chinese, North Korean, Cuban) Anti-Americanism during the Cold War was one of the most important cultural facts of the 20th century… so why these things aren't broadly described in the article?--201.81.226.160 (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but these can be seen in the light not of Anti-americanism but of wider internationl politics. Inded many (such as C uba) did not start out as Anti-american (and in some cases tried to court America as a friend) but were rebuffed by America. Of course if you can find some RS that say this was anti-americanism by all means we shousl include it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
They were not anti-American, any more than anti-Communism was anti-Russian or anti-Chinese. Notice the slogan "Communism is 20th Century Americanism". TFD (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)



Half the world believes Americans to be overweight - so does every statistic. The entry sets the bar too high. I am removing it. Asyoulikeit2 (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No- 'overweight' was an adjective used by Melton in his book, along with all the others. That you feel the 'entry sets the bar too high' is unfortunate, but just your point of view. I am removing your removal.You Can Act Like A Man. 14:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by You Can Act Like A Man (talk • contribs)

What about INTERNAL anti-Americanism?

-where is this section on 'home-bred' anti-Americanism? ...Someone who obviously doesn't understand politics deleted my previous post on this so I am forced to repeat myself. Can't remember two of the three examples I gave (the band Rage Against The Machine was one). Now they might claim they are actually 'ant-Imperialist' rather than anti-American; but the PERCEPTION is still that of anti-Americanism. Thoughts?

MY CURRENT SIGNATURE: Admin don't like me mentioning cretins in my signature  ;) 14:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, mention of the political views and activism of Rage Against the Machine would seem to fit here. the other two items you mentioned as examples were communists and CBS. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
CBS?!?! I suppose, according to Fox!  ;)

But again with Communists etc, does anti-system = anti-american? I think so, in perception- BUT perception = POV, eh...

MY CURRENT SIGNATURE: Admin don't like me mentioning cretins in my signature  ;) (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone may dislike how the US is run without disliking the country. TFD (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Good point; can that be tied in with this article? -as it strikes me that a lot of the anti-am'ism IN this article is not just about either the country or the running of it. Culture, for example? Maybe that's getting too bogged down You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Opposition to American culture is a key aspect of anti-Americanism. To them American culture is vulgar and materialistic because it reflects American "values". TFD (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Re whether anti-system == AA, this article defines AAism as "opposition or hostility to the policies, culture, society, economics or international role of the United States". That seems to me to be a loose enough definition to cover it. Perhaps that definition needs sharpening up. I'm a US expat, and I recall a mention of "that silly-ass constitution you yanks have" in a recent discussion. I personally don't consider the person who made that remark to be generally AA, but he considers some provisions of the US constitution to be wrongheaded and the fact that it's so difficult to change that to be silly. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The definition is too broad, is not supported by the source and should be changed. The US constitution has been amended 27 times and many people today want to see further amendments. It does not mean that these are all examples of anti-Americanism. Most foreign opposition appears to revolve around judicial interpretation of the first and second amendments. TFD (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Korea or South Korea?

I'm not sure I agree with this latest edit, they're both sovereign states and the section itself does only refer to the South's anti-Americanism; I guess the North's can be somewhat taken as read. But since the section discusses only South Korea, surely that should be reflected in the title? However i haven't changed it (YET) as the editor responsible may well be an expert in the field.

Paranoiacs comment on other peoples' sigs, AH-HA !!! (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

good point I added some text: In North Korea, July is the "Month of Joint Anti-American Struggle," with festivities to denounce the U.S. with cite to North Korea Handbook:. M.E. Sharpe. 2003. p. 369. Rjensen (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Nice one, cheers! Paranoiacs comment on other peoples' sigs, AH-HA !!! (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism in Spain

Anti-Americanism in Spain is and has always been quite strong. After the Iraq War only the 23% in Spain has a favourable opinion about it, like the articles says. But the poll of views doesn't show it, being maybe the most suspicious European country to USA.--Living001 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you suggest to improve the article?Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I think a small section could be added about Spain, it doesn't have to be big, like the France section, and the table didn't seem so accurate, but I have read the sources and are reliable. --Living001 (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

good idea--go ahead. (the US has never liked Spain either--Cuba was the issue 1850-98, then Spanish Civil War & WW2 roles). Rjensen (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Philippines

The section on the Philippines seems to be a bit schizophrenic.

The Anti-American sentiment in the Philippines has been rising since 2009 due to the controversial Visiting Forces Agreement, the historical Philippine–American War, and the 1898–1946 period of American rule. [...] However, a poll conducted in 2011 by the BBC found that 90% of Filipinos have a favorable view of the U.S., higher than the view of the U.S. in any other country

It seems to be pushing multiple, somewhat divergent, somewhat dated POVs. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Anti Americanism in Taiwan

Anti-American Children's Verses from Taiwan David K. Jordan Western Folklore Vol. 32, No. 3 (Jul., 1973), pp. 205-209 Published by: Western States Folklore Society Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1498385

21:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

9/11

The rhetorical question that reads "If 9/11 can be construed as the exemplar of anti-Americanism at work, does it make much sense to imply that all anti-Americans are complicit with terrorism?" is illogical and presumably disingenuous. Hence, it doesn't seem that it should be included nor given such emphasis in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.114.162 (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

South Korean Opinion on America

In the chart on the right positive opinion is shown to be 57% by a 2010 BBC poll, however later in the wiki article, South Korean positive opinion is 74% as of a 2011 BBC poll. At the very least the chart is outdated and must be replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.182.39.197 (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Middle East section

The Middle East section completely lacks any discussion of the role that US policies play in fomenting anti-Americanism in the region. It contains a quote from some Muslim Brotherhood dinosaur bashing Western hedonism and a right-wing scholar ascribing Arab anti-Americanism to backwardness and poverty - something that goes completely counter to empirical evidence. The evidence suggests, by contrast, that it is US policies that are correlated with anti-Americanism and that anti-Americanism is not fueled by poverty or lack of education - quite the contrary: anti-US 'radicals' are better off than their 'moderate' countrymen. Another thing: any discussion of contemporary anti-Americanism, specially in regards to the Middle East, needs to include references to the Iraq War. Prior to my edits, which some editors are trying to repress, there were none. This is an outrage. It seems some US users comfort themselves with the thought that Arab anti-Americanism is irrational, a product of either envy or religious chauvinism, and that behind this phenomenon there are no legitimate complaints. Evidence -- evidence I've linked to in my edits -- prove them wrong. 177.40.240.33 (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed! As for the nonsense about anti-Americans in the Middle East being 'backwards', is this bigoted and unfounded view supposed to apply to other regions as well? I am a white agnostic from Western Europe but I pride myself on being anti-American. Does this make me 'backwards' too? Personally, I think a country with no state healthcare provision, a vast socieconomic divide between a few very wealthy white men and the rest of population, a medieval attitude to gay rights and abortion, rampant neoimperialist tendencies, a history of apartheid and an enormous cultural tendency towards violence is 'backwards' but there you go. They've got the hegemony so they can shape whatever they want, sadly. This is an American website. The whole internet is American. As far as I can see, there is no way to get an alternative point of view across because they control everything. When you think about it, virtually every other country is just an American puppet state, either by being pro-American or by playing into its hands with insanely repressive policies (e.g. North Korea). I can't think of a genuine alternative anywhere outside my own thoughts. 79.66.88.41 (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
well it's always interesting to see some original thinking around here. To be more accurate, however, the US does have state health care provisions (and spends far more on medicine & research than all of Europe combined). It has a lot more wealthy, successful and powerful non-whites than all of Europe combined. As for "neoimperialist tendencies", I suppose that means looking too much like Russia, China, Germany, or indeed Churchill's Britain. As for violence, well yes that is an American characteristic all right (albeit one shared by 130 other countries, including practically all of Britain's ex-colonies save Canada, Australia and NZ.) Rjensen (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
He was probably referring to the concentration of wealth,as opposed to the number of rich people.Out of the top 20 developed nations,americas wealth is the most concentrated.And whether other nations are neo-imperialist or not should have absolutely no bearing on whether America is neo-imperialist.That should be judged on the basis of US foreign policy as opposed to other nations foreign policy182.185.112.53 (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

European Opinion on America

According to latest polls in Slovenia (2013), 86% voters see USA as a military predator which ruins county after country to maintain it's global power. In 2001 (after 9/11), less than 10% Slovenians saw USA as "an evil empire". The majority of people in almost all European countries (with few examples like Poland, Great Britain) have negative feelings about USA's politics. The main reasons they mention are : extremly agressive aproach to gain more control over oil (millions of death civillians in last 10 years), American style neocapitalism which ruined the majority of middle-class in Europe , and other reasons. In 2001 the majority of Europeans saw USA as a protector, the most democratic country,etc but in the meantime USA started or anticipated in more than dozen of wars and "revolutions" worldwide, the middle-class became almost non existent,etc. Majority of Europeans hates the American goverment and thir policies, NOT the American people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.10.37.112 (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Opposition to U.S. foreign policy is not necessarily anti-Americanism. TFD (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Protesters

1. The London Protest appears to be entirely targeted at the Bush Administration (and Blair/Brown), and not necessarily "anti-American." 2. Mexico did indeed claim Texas and the Southwest until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, so the map (while not "accurate" in terms of being a faithful drawing) is correct. This also is not a specifically "anti-American" protest. Basically, it appears that any protest that is not in line with U.S. establishment thinking is "Anti-American." 24.167.52.195 (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"Anti-American" ...

Is nothing but a slur, used to excuse violence against critics of the policies of the American government. 71.163.96.225 (talk) 23:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Source

The source I provided is published by Wiley which according to this encyclopedia is "global publishing company that specializes in academic publishing". That sounds reliable to me. 23 year old bored guy (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The source is reliable but I see a problem in that "Americanophobia" is only mentioned once in passing in the entire book. Seems a bit weak for inclusion of the term in the lead.--TMCk (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but we also take into consideration the trends in academic work. For example there are many similar such suffixes among anti country sentiments. You should also consider that there are other variations such as "Americophobia" (Transatlantic Manners: Social Patterns in Nineteenth-Century Anglo-American Travel Literature, Mulvey, Christopher, Cambridge University Press, page 133) or "Americaphobia" (America Through the Eyes of China and India; Bloomsbury Publishing page 27) and many other variations. I have picked only one of many variations for inclusion. If I picked only one of multiple alternative forms, this would merit it as due weight. I could provide another source that mentions it more often, however I see no such requirement per our guidelines. 23 year old bored guy (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
It bothered me to but I noted the dictionaries date the term to 1841. I cited a major article Using "Americophobia" in the title, which is online free and of value to readers: Denis Lacorne, "Anti-Americanism and Americanophobia: A French Perspectives." (2005). Rjensen (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant image

Please explain what an image, which is being restored for no reason [1], of "Immigration day" has to do with Anti-Americanism. Please note the citation needed tag on the caption. Please note the caption is written in editorializing non-encyclopedic language. Removing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek is right--this is not anti-Americanism (and the map is accurate enough). It's a demand by Americans for more appreciation of a historic Spanish-language group that have been American citizens for 167 years. Rjensen (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

non-NPOV about Alternative for Germany

The article claims that the German party "Alternative for Germany" was opposing the EU, is anti-American and anti-immigrant.

In the article it reads: "but reemerged in the 21st century especially in the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party that began in opposition to European Union, and now has become both anti-American and anti-immigrant."

The sentence is sourced with this article.

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21642211-anti-americanism-always-strong-german-left-growing-right-ami-go-home

Thge article doesn't give any proof that the party was anti-American or anti-immigrant or opposing the EU.

Proof that AfD is not opposing the EU and is not anti-immigrant or Anti-American is found in their latest election manifesto for the European parliament.

http://www.alternativefuer.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/AfD-Manifesto-for-Europe.pdf

regarding the opposing EU claim, page 2: "The Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) aims for a European Union (EU) of sovereign states. It rejects a European federal state on the model of the United States of America, because there is no European nation as such and no single European constitutive populace. The European Union is committed to freedom, peace, public welfare and social security. It contributed to German and European recovery, to economic growth, to understanding among nations, and to German reunification. (AfD) professes its unqualified belief in a European Union which does justice to the Enlightenment and the striving of nations for human rights and democracy, and which enduringly preserves the fundamental values of the Christian West."

regarding anti-immigrant claim, page 14: "The AfD supports a Germany which is open and friendly to foreigners and affirms both the freedom of establishment and the right of free movement of workers. Our demographic development requires an immigration policy in accord with our needs that not only assures the care of our aging population, but also that the requirements of businesses for highly qualified workers can be met."

regarding the Anti-American claim, page 11: "Nato is and remains the bond of a transatlantic security architecture whose crucial anchor is the alliance with the USA. There is no scope for an additional European Minister of Defence, much less a European army. But regardless of any loyalty to the alliance, violations of borders and standards on the part of the USA — as in the case of NSA data collection — must, as necessary, be decisively opposed with diplomatic and judicial means."

Why are these wrong and harmful claims allowed to be displayed on Wikipedia? Can anybody explain this to me? I deleted this this wrong claim until anybody is able to proof the opposite. Ich901 (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

That article from the economist clearly states "The newer element is anti-Americanism on the right. Once confined to the loony fringes of, say, Bavaria’s CSU, the conservative sister party to Mrs Merkel’s Christian Democrats, it has leapt beyond the CSU’s beer tents to a young ultraconservative party, Alternative for Germany (AfD). AfD started life as an anti-euro party but it has now become anti-immigrant and anti-American as well." Other sources that mention this fact include The NYTimes and The London School of Economics and Political Science. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't question that what was in the article is also written in the source. But these claims are simply wrong and unproven just like the claim AfD "was ultra-conservative". Claiming something and proving it are two different things. Who can a party that says yes to European unification and the EU and which is in the same fraction as the Conservatives from the United Kingdom in the European parliament be regarded as Ultra-conservative? It can't because it is simply wrong. Ich901 (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't write what individual people say is true, but rather what is said in independent Reliable Sources. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty of reliable sources that claim the opposite: just one example: The party is most commonly described as Eurosceptic, conservative and liberal, and to be in the conservative/economic liberal spectrum,[1]
Regarding the claims of "Anti-Americanism", "anti-immigrant", "opposing EU", "Ultra conservative" How can the economist article be regarded as reliable source, when the official election manifesto of the party states the opposite? That's what party presents as official document to its voters. And this is what the voters are voting for. Ich901 (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
And see WP:DUE and WP:OPINION. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Political scientists Stephan Dreischer and Jakob Lempp of the Federal Agency for Civic Education describe the party as liberal, conservative.[2] The current version of the article clearly violates the NPOV guidelines. It is amusing how all these accusations are displayed as a fact without the necessary proofs. They are clearly the direct opposite of what the party published in their official election manifesto and this is not displayed in the article. So it is also unbalanced. Just because an unidentified author of the Economist claims something doesn't make it true. The author is not identified as a political scientist. Claims like these from third parties should only be regarded as reliably sourced if they come from a political scientist and not by an unknown journalist, who doesn't even want to show his name.Ich901 (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
The parties manifesto is an example of a primary non independent source. Wikipedia is not in the business of proving anything, just reporting what reliable sources say on the subject. The Economist is considered a reliable secondary source by consensus at WP:RSN. Additionally, the two other sources you have given also do not prove your point. The former describes their immigration policy as "well within the conservative spectrum" and "aimed at decisively preventing unregulated immigration" whilst saying nothing on their views towards the United States. The second source does not discuss their policy towards immigration or the united states. Just out of curiosity, what would your preferred version of the article say about the AfD and/or post-soviet anti-Americanism in Germany, and how would you cite it? Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Winner 42 is quite right. The job of editors at Wikipedia is to report what reliable sources are saying. Ich901 on the other hand seems to be saying that unless the official manifesto of a group announces that it is anti-American, Wikipedia should not make that claim. Wikipedia is not making any claims – it is reporting what the Economist states on the basis of its research inside Germany earlier this year. As for suggestions of illegality & reference to the German penal code, that sounds almost like a threat and threats are not tolerated at Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC) Rap Brown said that "violence is as American as apple pie". And let's not forget about Green Day, Anti-Flag, Propaghandi, and other punk rock bands.

Henry Ford as anti-American

The claim Henry Ford was a spokesman for anti-Americanism will require a very strong reliable secondary source. A quotation from "the international Jew" will not do the job-- Ford sponsored its publication, but did not write any of it, and probably never read any of it. He later apologized and withdrew it from circulation. Rjensen (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Are 3 tables really necessary?

Are 3 tables in the article really necessary? Especially considering it takes up so room, and not really getting any point across. Maybe it'd be better in a prose format. EtherealGate (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

the tables work very well--providing a lot of comparable info at a glance. People uninterested in the data can easily skip it. Rjensen (talk) 05:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
And 2 tables for the same data? What's the point? It's also taking up too much room, especially the last one. I'd say keep the 1st and 2nd tables only. EtherealGate (talk) 05:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Or maybe the 2nd table should go instead, considering the pos-neg difference is more consistent with the other tables. EtherealGate (talk) 05:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Anti-Americanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

Special note: To avoid an external link farm, the numerous articles posted on the subject have been moved to Talk:Anti-Americanism/External link


עס ס די צייַט פון דעם אַרטיקל קומען אין אונדזער לאַנד שפּראַך לייענען צו קöנען Moischa Kantor (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Awkward / Not Neutral Wording

Relating to this sentence in the first paragraph of the article:

"Common contemporary negative stereotypes of Americans include the assertions that Americans are: aggressive, arrogant, ignorant, overweight, poorly dressed, obsessed with making money, too moralistic and also too materialistic, too involved as policeman for the world, and generally obnoxious"

This seems awfully wordy and I think that it also strays from neutral language in the "too involved as policeman of the world". For this reason, I revised the sentence to as follows:

"Common contemporary negative stereotypes of Americans include the assertions that Americans are: aggressive, arrogant, ignorant, overweight, poorly dressed, obsessed with making money, too moralistic and also too materialistic, too involved in global affairs, and generally obnoxious"

The phrase "too involved in global affairs" is not only more neutral in prose but also more concise and to the point. It appears that a user named Rjensen reverted back to the original language, citing "they complain chiefly about policeman role". "Global affairs" is a reference to that role that also encompasses nonmilitary influence and is much more neutral in nature. Where am I going wrong? History2222 (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's true that anti-Americanism derives from a sense that the United States is "too involved in global affairs." That's too neutral & does not tell the reader about the rhetorical flavor of anti-Americanism, Or the specific reasons why this involvement is too much. For example there was plenty of anti-Americanism that never complained about US involvement in the two world wars. You better find a strong RS that makes that assertion. Instead I see much more often the interventionism of the United States in terms of being a global policeman. The term global policeman I think is often used. 1) "The Big Brother or Global Policeman image comes up often." say Varro, & Boyd in International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1998; 2) "Viewed from abroad," declared one writer, "the United States was becoming as much a global nanny as a global policeman." says Graebner in The Virginia Quarterly Review 2001; 3) " the US is becoming, de facto, the self-appointed global policeman it said it never wanted to be" Tomiak in Security Studies, 2006; 4) " play the global policeman .... exacerbated global anti-Americanism." Bremmer in Prospect Magazine, 2010; 5) "the growing unpopularity of the policies of the sole superpower as a global policeman" Nautiyal in Strategic Insights, 2006; 6) "most of all the American arrogance, its strutting around

the world as the global policeman, and its selective use and abuse of the UN" Moten in Islam in Southeast Asia: Political, social and strategic 2005; etc. Rjensen (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

So you believe my wording is "too neutral"? This is an encyclopedia, it is intended to feature neutral content. Simply because it is used often is not a reason to use that language, especially without quotation marks. How about instead we change "too involved as policeman for the world" to "too involved in international military affairs" instead? Or, perhaps this information belongs in another sentence entirely, as it is not a "stereotype" of all Americans, but rather just the American government?

History2222 (talk) 05:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I mean to say your wording is seriously misleading and not supported by RS. I do not think it is true that anti-Americanism was based on the idea that the United States was too involved in world affairs. Switzerland is even more involved in world affairs does not get that sort of criticism. The anti-American critics strongly disliked the policeman role, has shown by the RS I just quoted. Rjensen (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

So you do not think that "too involved in global military affairs" is simply a more neutral and less awkward way of saying "too involved as policeman for the world"? Simply because some "Reputable Sources" use that language does not mean that is appropriate nor grammatically correct to be used in this manner. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Doesn't the sentence Rjensen wants sound awkward? History2222 (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's highly misleading and not what the critics are complaining about-- do you have a RS to support that wording? Rjensen (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

How about simply "too interventionist in their military use?" The term "internationalist" is widely accepted, obliviously (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8868861&fileId=S0017257X00003201)

Do you have a better idea? Your sentence is awkward, and I believe that most others would agree. We need to fix it. History2222 (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

How about, "too aggressive in their military actions and their covert support for authoritarian governments in the name of anti-Communism." Rjensen (talk) 02:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that is too wordy for that particular sentence and probably too specific as well. How about simply "too aggressive in their military actions"? History2222 (talk) 04:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it's only 18 words! Rjensen (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm? That brings the total length of the sentence to almost 50 words! History2222 (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The objection is a perception that the U.S. has no hesitation in using violence in order to protect its interests, even when it is not in the best interests of other nations. Whether or not that is a neutral or even accurate assessment is beside the point because we are desribing what anti-Americans believe. People who hold that view do not necessarily oppose all U.S. military and non-military involvement in international affairs. TFD (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so explain that later in the article. IT is simply too long and awkward to be added to an already lengthy sentence. History2222 (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Anger with the U.S. role in the world is too significant to the topic not to mention later in the article. TFD (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
too much info in one sentence? the solution is two sentences. :) Rjensen (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Lede

Per WP:LEDE: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. The current lede does not come close to provide a summary of the article. Tagged as such. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems to meet the criteria. If you disagree, please mention the most important points you think should be included. In the meantime, I will remove the tag. TFD (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
The lede as written currently does not come close to summarizing the article. It does not summarize the 20th and 21th century aspects, and neither it summarizes the distinctions related to geopolitics. Last time I checked, tags are designed to induce discussion, and should not be removed until the discussion is exhausted and consensus reached. Please respect WP:DR, and restore the tag. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
When one posts a tag, one should explain what needs to be done in order to meet the complaint. I did not think your first post did that. Certainly it will always be a matter of judgment how much detail is included in the lead. I think the level of detail currently is sufficient, but welcome other views. If you feel that strongly about it, why not attempt expanding it yourself? TFD (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anti-Americanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Anti-Americanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anti-Americanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-Americanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Albanophobia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Anti-Americanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Anti-Americanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Anti-Americanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anti-Americanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Anti-Americanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated/POV section on computers.

It's great Konrad Zuse made a mechanical computer in 1935, but that little influence. I think the idea that Americans merely commercialized computer technology invented by Europeans is absurd. Tim Berners-Lee gets a mention for the WWW, but there's no mention of the underlying internet? ARPANET, Vint Cerf, BBN?

Look at everything invented by IBM from hard drives to DRAM. Shockley invented the transistor. Intel invented the microprocessor.

This isn't a neutral article on anti-Americanism. It's a crude example of it.107.141.160.161 (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

it is an article about attitudes, as the material is sourced it is clear the attitude exists. However I can see that it needs re-wording.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ottawa protest

I removed the image of the Ottawa protest for review. Here's the wikitext:

[[File:Green means GO!.jpg|thumb|Anti-American demonstration in [[Ottawa|Ottawa, Ontario]], Canada]]

I don't agree that this is anti-American, but rather anti-George W. Bush. Protests such as this occurred in the United States during the same time as well, by those who did not consider themselves anti-American (but, rather, that Bush was). The signs in the protest are overwhelmingly about Bush, and not about the US itself or about Americans. Perhaps it's just a poor picture that doesn't capture an anti-American sentiment that underran the protest, but even if so, it should be replaced with a better one, or just excluded.

Keith D. Tyler 00:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Update Pew Research data to 2017

Most countries experienced a very significant decrease in favorability of the US after Trump got elected. Please update the data from Pew Research.

To stay relevant with current events, the article should also mention the suffering of the American image after Trump got elected since we can statistically see that it did (to a pretty great extent). See here for reference. I would update it myself but I don't have the time... Best, --Markusw0207 (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit: also perhaps include this measurement, which is probably the most relevant to actual anti-Americanism against Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markusw0207 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

We can update the Pew figures, but claiming it relates to Trump requires additional sources. Note that US popularity is always lower under Republican administrations. Also, the figures do not show the degree of unpopularity. Note that US popularity in Canada and Russia are almost the same. But the view of the U.S. in the two countries is very different. A negative rating of the U.S. in Russia is stronger than one in Canada. TFD (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
See the difference between opinion on America in 2015 and 2017:
http://www.pewglobal.org/database/indicator/1/survey/19/response/Unfavorable/ & http://www.pewglobal.org/database/indicator/1/survey/17/response/Unfavorable/
The median (outside of US) for people saying they see the US as *unfavorable* was 29% in 2015 (under Obama), and 41% in 2017 (under Trump). 63% said they had a favorable view of the US in 2015 (under Obama), and 49% say they have a favorable view of the US in 2017 (under Trump).
You can see the full report here:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/u-s-image-suffers-as-publics-around-world-question-trumps-leadership/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markusw0207 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Pew Research Center updated to 2017. EtherealGate (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Proposed split

I propose that the section Anti-Americanism#Regional anti-Americanism be split off into its own article at Anti-American sentiment by region, both for size reasons (section size >50 kB prose, total article size ~80 kB prose) and to narrow the scope of each article, aiding in future maintenance.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

strongly oppose. Readers will be looking for varieties of A-A and splitting them up is confusing and will lose many readers. The article is not too long because people will be looking for specific topics (eg fascist AA in Germany and Italy) and will not be required to read the other sections. No one will be helped by the split. Rjensen (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
@Rjensen: I guess a large portion of the page views would come from people looking for regional coverage considering how much of the article is about it and my bold split last night was definitely too hasty now that I rethink it, but I think having each country reachable in the TOC box would help navigation, which would be possible in a dedicated article by moving each heading up a level. Deleting the section would be inadvisable, but maybe summarizing the content here and putting the full, or even expanded, section in a spinoff could allow us to have more complete, easy to navigate content.
On a marginally related note, what would you say to reorganizing the Asia section and creating a new level 3 section "Middle East"? I think it might be helpful since people could be looking specifically for the middle east and not want to trudge through the long "Asia" section, but I would like to ask the opinion of editors more familiar with the page.
Finally, if you are entirely opposed to a large scale split of the section, would you be amenable spinning off a long subsection, such as the one on Canada, into it's own article?
it's ok by me to have a long article on AA in Canada and a brief summary here. Rjensen (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think that is the wrong approach. The topic should not be broken down by region, but by forms and issues. The anti-Americanism that developed in Canada for example is interesting because it was based on political rather than cultural differences. TFD (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Overall POV issue

We have here an article on Anti-Americanism, basically almost entirely about Anti-American attitudes in the world outside the USA, but when I look for Pro-American, it redirects to American Nationalism, which is entirely about Pro-American attitudes inside the USA. The perhaps more than a third of the world's people outside the USA who are broadly pro-American (and also a large number of neutrals) according to our tables here (and the perhaps similar number of Pro-American governments) are seemingly of almost no interest to Wikipedia (or perhaps have implausibly received almost no analysis by reliable sources, or whatever). For instance there is nothing about the statistic which I found oddest/least expected in the tables here, the position of Vietnam as supposedly the most pro-American people in the world in our 1917 PEW Research table (despite the Vietnam War, etc). And so on ad infinitum. It all seems rather unbalanced and thus POV to me. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

However, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO, I am neither sufficiently interested nor sufficiently competent to try to fix the problem myself, as distinct from merely pointing it out here on the off-chance that doing so might cause other perhaps more interested and expert editors to try to address it. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

There are people who want to model their countries on the U.S. and see the country as the guarantor of civilization, but I don't know if there is any literature about that. There are articles though about Anglophilia, Francophilia, etc. TFD (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Non US English

The first non-stub version of this article in 2003 used non US English (eg saviour rather than savior). Additionally, most of the quotes used in the article also use non US English. Since this article is about a sentiment that is naturally far more common outside of the US, I believe that, per WP:ENGVAR, the article should consistently use non US English spellings and the most common date format used worldwide (outside of direct quotations, of course). --BushelCandle (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Quotes should be that, quotes.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
There is no consistency in English spelling outside the U.S., you would have to pick a specific country such as the U.K. or Canada. Anti-Americanism btw is strongest in countries that don't speak English. TFD (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
The template of EngvarB spelling covers this. A quote from the relevant article: "Written English as used in the Commonwealth generally favours British spelling as opposed to American, with some exceptions in Canada, where there is a strong influence from neighbouring American English (collectively, the US and Canadian dialects form North American English). Few Commonwealth countries besides Canada and Australia have produced their own dictionaries and style guides from major publishers, and rely on those produced in the United Kingdom, especially for formal writing."--BushelCandle (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
After 10 months, nobody has disputed either that the original version of this article was not in US English nor that this article should be an exception to the guidelines laid down in WP:ENGVAR nor that the article should consistently use non US English spellings and the most common date format used worldwide. I shall, therefore, now place the relevant templates. --BushelCandle (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
A recent new editor has raised, with his edit summary, the red herring as to whether this article should be in US English since it may have strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation - the USA. Naturally, most of the material (including most of the sources and quotes} in this article relates to sentiments that are not as widely expressed in the US as outwith the US. So, if there are "strong ties", these ties are to countries other than the US and not to the US itself. Consequently the tie-breaker is that the first stable version of this article (see above) used non-US English. "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary." --BushelCandle (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Anti-Americanism is about the United States, and while such sentiments may be more common outside the country, it does not give this topic any strong ties to any other specific country. The sources should not determine what style of English the article uses, and if you want to use quotes, you can paraphrase instead. Additionally, MOS:RETAIN says that strong national ties could make an exception to its own rule.--Roastedturkey (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Why would anyone think this should be written in anything other than American English? This article centers around the United States, and should therefore be written in American English according to MOS:TIES. --Roastedturkey (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It's up to the editors of each article. Personally, I don't see any anomaly that an article about anti-Americanism would not use American English. Anti-Americanism is more popular outside the U.S. than within. TFD (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Anti-Americanism may be more common outside the United States, but it is still about the United States, and not any other country, so this article should be written in American English. --Roastedturkey (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
The American Declaration of Independence is mostly about the U.K., but it's in American English. One thing to take into account in writing an article is the version of English used in primary and secondary sources. Certainly the vast majority of primary sources are not American and the secondary sources seem evenly mixed. TFD (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
How could the United States Declaration of Independence be mostly about the UK if the US was formed by it? It is about thirteen British colonies declaring their independence as the United States. And what does it matter what style of English the sources are written in? --Roastedturkey (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Because it is mostly about the perceived grievances the 13 colonies have against the UK, which is the reason they declared independence. And there is no reference in the document to the formation of the U.S.
If the source documents use a different spelling, then the spelling in directly quoted text will differ from the rest of the article. For example, "The minister's view on labor unions was "the government should support labour unions.""
TFD (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
The colonies may not have immediately formed the US, but they still declared independence, cooperated throughout the war, and would still eventually unite under the United States.
If a quote uses non-US spellings, you can paraphrase instead.
--Roastedturkey (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
NO, quotes are quoted.Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
What I'm saying is don't use quotes that use non-US spellings.--Roastedturkey (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see why not, they are quotes. We would include any punctuation or spelling errors, so why not none US spelling (especially if the spelling is in fact correct for the time or place)? In fact it could be pointed out this article is not about the USA, its about other peoples perceptions of it.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
If you really want to use quotes with non-US spellings, thats fine, but the rest of the article should be written in American English. And this article is about negative attitudes toward the United States, which is still about the United States.--Roastedturkey (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)#
In my first post I said just that, the article should be in American English.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Then we are in agreement?--Roastedturkey (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Not about quotes, only about the rest of the article, yes.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I am willing to agree with you on quotes.--Roastedturkey (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, yes it should be in American English, why is this even an issue?Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Americanism does have strong ties to the United States (the majority of the quotes, sources and viewpoints in our Americanism article naturally come from within the United States and US English was the original variety of English in that article and nobody has sought to change it there.

Anti-Americanism (also called anti-American sentiment and Americanophobia) is a sentiment that espouses a dislike of or opposition to the American government or its policies, especially in regards to its foreign policy, or to Americans in general.
Consequently and in contrast, the strongest ties to the ideas expressed under this article title of Anti-Americanism are to ideas that have originated in countries other than the US; naturally the majority of the quotes, sources and viewpoints in this article come from other countries and not from the US. Consequently, and since the ties to opinions and sentiments commonly expressed in the United States are no more common than the ties to opinions and sentiments commonly expressed in countries such as India, Britain, Canada, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Nigeria, Jamaica, South Africa, etc, we should retain the original (non-US) variety of English per MOS:RETAIN.

Let's not waste any further time on this. Previous discussions on this talk page have generated even more heat and less light and this is a waste of everybody's more fruitful time. --BushelCandle (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Who are the main advocates of anti-Americanism in the United States? TFD (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Dunno.
As another editor has perceptively commented above "In fact it could be pointed out this article is not about the USA, its about other peoples perceptions of it" and consequently proponents from the US tend to be people like Black Panthers who were not exactly proud of the influence of the US in many spheres...--BushelCandle (talk) 03:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I've said it before and I will say it again. Anti-Americanism is about the United States. Not Great Britain, not Canada, not India, not Nigeria. MOS:RETAIN itself says that MOS:TIES is an exception to its own rule.--Roastedturkey (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
If you follow that logic, then Christianity is about Israel, not about Europeans or other people who follow those beliefs. TFD (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Er... How about MOS:TIES? Are you asserting that this article on anti-Americanism does not have strong ties to America? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't. It's a view of the U.S. that exists overwhelmingly outside the U.S. Do you not agree that there is more anti-Americanism in the UK, Canada and rest of the world outside the U.S. than there is inside it? TFD (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh I agree, but Anti-Americanism can only relate to the US specifically, and it is generally strongest in countries that do not even speak English. Also, Anti-British sentiment and Anti-Canadianism are both written in their respective versions of English, and nobody seems to be grumpy about it. --Roastedturkey (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Quick note: 

...endlessly repetitive "semantic block"

is usually called "narrative". 

Zezen (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

"Ami go home" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ami go home. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 15#Ami go home until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 16:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism is also a polemic term

The term Anti-Americanism is also used as a political buzzword against Criticism of American foreign policy. In Russia, Serbia or Venezuela for example the negative perception of US is based on facts (about American Politics) and not on Propaganda, sure there are Russians and Serbs who for example believe that Americans are uneducated and stupid but I dont think that this is the main point of view in Russia or Serbia.--88.66.139.97 (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

North Korea's entry badly sourced in the lede, also separating Pakistan from the Middle East seems redundant?

The first source on North Korea talks about govt nuclear efforts, with nothing on public opinion in the country, so garbage. The second one references anti-American protests in the country, but is insufficient to support the label of 'widespread'. I think the entry should be taken out of the lede (kept in its own section below of course), unless there are polls indicating that most North Koreans hold unfavourable views of the U.S.

On Pakistan, isn't it considered part of the Greater Middle East? Or should we start linking Central Asian & other Muslim-majority countries technically outside of the Middle East that are also anti-US, until the list grows too tedious? Maybe removing Pakistan & changing the wording to Greater Middle East would be better. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

By Middle East we typically cover areas of Western Asia, formerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire. Pakistan was never among them. Dimadick (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Why not just say Muslim world?Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Muslim world or Greater Middle East would both work, although I'm concerned that the former, if linked to its Wikipedia page would encompass too many countries which may not necessarily be that anti-US. Hmm, if no one has anything on North Korea, I'll be making the changes in a few days. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Kosovars are Muslims and have a positive point of view on US.--88.66.139.97 (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

What about in Africa?

The article doesn't have section of anti-Americanism in Africa while the five continents mentioned? The Supermind (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Lead section

This is a response to this revert, as requested.

The [[WP:FURST|lead paragraph of this article reads:

Anti-Americanism (also called anti-American sentiment)[3] is prejudice, fear or hatred of the American government, its foreign policy, or the American people in general.[4]

The reverted edit had changed "is prejudice, ..." to "is prejudiced ...", but with an edit summary mostly focusing elsewhere, saying: "WP:Bold edit of MOS:LEADSENTENCE bit from 'is prejudice, fear or hatred' to 'is prejudiced fear or hatred'. However, IMO, the whole para needs a rewrite with MOS:OPEN in mind; 'The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. [...]';."

No page number is given in the book cited as a supporting source, but page 4 says: "This book shows how the popular opinion of the United States takes a loose multifaceted form in which negative and positive elements coexist with no apparent tensions."

With or without my edit, it seems to me that there is some tension between the lead para and the source cited in support. Regardless of whether or not I am right about that, I don't believe that the current lead paragraph as written fulfills the mandate of the MOS:OPEN project page. Others may disagree; I'm OK with whatever the consensus is on this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the edit I reverted, the use of the word "prejudiced" to modify "fear" (or "hatred") is awkward usage, because those words are not normally used together. In addition, it inaccurately suggests that the fear or hatred is entirely based on prejudice. It might be based on a rational fear or even a rational hatred (perhaps mixed in with prejudice). The earlier version seems okay to me, and I do not really understand your objection to it. Could you be more specific? How would you suggest making the opening paragraph more neutral, or more specific? What do you mean by "tension" between the lead paragraph and sources? NightHeron (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
This was meant to be just a drive-by edit;
  • I took prejudice to mean, "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." ([2], although I didn't look that up until just now), and meant "fear or hatred" to be taken as meaning "preconceived fear or preconceived hatred".
  • By tension here, I meant that the assertion citing the source in support does not seem to me to be an accurate paraphrasing of what I understood the snippet I quoted from that book source to be saying. I just took another look and I see that following the sentence I quoted above, the text there goes on: "My analyses demonstrate that popular anti-Americanism is mostly benign and shallow. It is far from being a prejudice or an ingrained view of ideological opposition, ...". I didn't look at the cited supporting source until discussing this here on the talk page, and do see some tension there with the assertion the book is cited to support.
I'll leave it to regular editors of this article to make whatever improvements are needed. I may or may not take another look at this article when I see it pop up on my watchlist again. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:18, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lewandowsky, Marcel (March 2014). "Alternative für Deutschland (AfD)" (PDF). International Policy Analysis.
  2. ^ http://www.bpb.de/politik/wahlen/wer-steht-zur-wahl/brandenburg-2014/188555/afd
  3. ^ Denis Lacorne, "Anti-Americanism and Americanophobia: A French Perspectives." (2005).
  4. ^ Chiozza, Giacomo (2009). Anti-Americanism and the World Order. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Australian submarine crisis

Do any of the sources say this has increased or led to (or even mention) anti-Americanism? If not then this is not an example of it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@31NOVA: join in on this discussion.CycoMa (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven and CycoMa: The source mentions an anti-American political figure, he is not alone of course, the events obviously led to anti-Americanism. --31NOVA (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
So? I have no doubt he holds many views. The wording says this "has awakened some anti-American behavior", does it say that?Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: okay, so what you're saying is that we should change this sentence? Something like "leaders denounced the events and raised anti-Americanism"? --31NOVA (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The whole papragraph has been objected to. per wp:brd it should be removed until consensus is reached to include it. I am saying I do not see the relevance of any of it. And no "ean-Luc Mélenchon, denounced the United States. For the presidential candidate whose speech is often marked by anti-Americanism" does not support the idea that has Awakened it, as he never stopped.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I see, well where should we include that paragraph? Nowhere? --31NOVA (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
That is what I said.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Ok, sorry for the inconvenience, you could have told me to go to the talk page directly after my 2-3 reverts, without the ping I wouldn't be here. --31NOVA (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Then please remove it and make a case as to how this is a major example of French anti-Americanism, we do not have to have every pronouncment by Jean-Luc Mélenchon.Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I just removed it, stop insisting when we are in agreement on removing the paragraph. --31NOVA (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I was not aware you had agreed to remove it, thank you for doing so.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Anti-Americanism

This article it's a joke. Objectivity is totally absent, we feel the anger of the one who writes Look that " In France, the term "Anglo-Saxon" is often used in expressions of anti-Americanism or Anglophobia. It also has had more nuanced uses in discussions by French writers on French decline, especially as an alternative model to which France should aspire, how France should adjust to its two most prominent global competitors, and how it should deal with social and economic modernization" A very nice sentence to criticize France. But all article it's like that. Stop taking yourself for models, American friends, you tire the planet — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwaxawS (talk • contribs) 22:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

You probably won't get much cooperation if you begin a post by criticizing editors who contribute to this article and end by making anti-American comments. Anti-Americanism is an irrational hatred of the U.S. and is distinguished from rational criticism of U.S. society and its politics. It obviously takes a different form in France than say in English Canada since in the first case it builds on anglo-phobia while in the second case it was built on anglo-philia. It's not a criticism of France or English Canada. TFD (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I disagreed you putting "irrational hatred" as equal as Anti-Americanism. I do consider Anti-Americanism include rational criticism and dislike based on real world events. What you suggesting here is like saying people in other countries who dislike American are blindly haters while in fact they do have plenty of reasons disliking the USPurekung (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
You may, but what do RS think?Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


What is RS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purekung (talk • contribs) 14:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Reliable sources please read wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh ok. I am not saying Reliable sources is not needed. I just found your definition of Anti-Americanism a bit concerning. Not saying Reliable sources is not important Purekung (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Well I am saying it is needed to back up your definition.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Then what back up your definition?Purekung (talk) 14:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Well if you mean statements like "For this reason, critics sometimes argue the label is a propaganda term that is used to dismiss any censure of the United States as irrational", the source is in the text already. Other than that I can see no edit by TFD adding this. So what are you objecting to?Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2022

Though, it is fair to be noted, maybe not as justification but atleast to understand the situation, America's actions for money and power (economic and political) has influenced indirectly and directly the death of millions of Muslims in Muslim-majority countries. Such a view can be historically evidenced and defended. The idea is that, though there may be some aggressive people and groups, they represent a miniscule percentage of the Muslim societies, they are clear anomalies. People are 'just living their lives', and then when America decides to apply force, they don't value Muslim lives as much as they would others, whether consciously or unconsciously. Due to these, movements like ‘The war on terror’ and their people, are seen in some ways as the terrorists themselves by causing, literally, terror. [1] 2.27.123.242 (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Not done. Your source is not about anti-Americanism, and so it doesn't belong here. NightHeron (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Smith, William (25 September 2020). "The truth about the war on terror". The Hill. Retrieved 27 February 2022.

Pakistan hate US

75% Population of Pakistan hate US,because US destroy Pakistan economy in 20 years of war Pakistanis hate US more than Russia,China,North Korea. 203.101.165.202 (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

source? Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Communist critiques

This part of the article seems heavily dominated by East Germany, and leaves out modern Socialist and Communist criticism (areas that could be addressed include:

1. American treatment of Native Americans: In East Germany for example, there was a very big pro-Native movement, Communists as early as even the 1920s were critising the USA on these grounds. The primary example being Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev. And of course, modern Communists and Socialists who criticse the US on these grounds too.

2. American treatment of African Americans. Many Soviet posters were made condemming the USA for how it discriminated against the African American population.

3. American imperialism: The USA was viewed as an imperialist power in the wake of the Korean War, Vietnam, Cuba, and pretty much any and all acts of American involvement in regime change during the Cold War period that were known about.

As for East Germany, I'm not entirely sure why this part of the page gives such a focus to them, all things considered. Perhaps parts of it could be trimmed down? Genabab (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Also, there are many problems with the section's treatment of East Germany. Several of the claims are unsupported by sources; there are 4 citation needed templates, of which 2 are from four years ago and 2 are from 1 1/2 years ago. The parts that are sourced rely too much on one book (Schnorr's The Good and the Bad America). I can't check that source, since it's behind a paywall. It's not clear whether the direct quote "terrorist international of murderers on Wall Street" is Schnorr's paraphrase or words of East Germans quoted by Schnorr. In either case it seems chosen out of context (and possibly mistranslated) in order to make East Germany look ridiculous. The main problem I see with the section is failure to adhere to WP:V and WP:NPOV.
If you have better sources for criticism of the US by socialist bloc countries, please feel free to extensively edit the section. NightHeron (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
<nowiki>I don't think those are examples of anti-Americanism. Lots of patriotic Americans for example opposed racial discrimination. I agree though that the East German section is too long. Note the quote, "Marx...did not participate in the anti-Americanism that came to be the hallmark of Communist ideology in the twentieth century." It would be helpful to explain how Communist anti-Americanism departed from Marxist analysis. TFD (talk) 17:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

We have to be careful about adding material to this section (or the article in general) that describes opposition to the US government but does not necessarily meet the definition of anti-Americanism given at the beginning of the article: "prejudice, fear or hatred of the United States, its government, its foreign policy, or Americans in general". I think the best approach would be to add material only if there's a reliable secondary source that uses the term anti-Americanism to describe the viewpoint.

I doubt that most scholars would use the term "anti-American" to refer to the viewpoint among some Native Americans that they should form a separate country, any more than they would use "anti-American" to refer to the Southern successionists in the Civil War.

Also, we should keep in mind the criticism of the over-use of the term. The section on "Interpretations" mentions, for example, the writings of Max Paul Friedman, who documents cases where the charge of "anti-Americanism" was used to deflect legitimate criticism and advice (such as French advice to President Kennedy not to send troops to Vietnam).

As far as communist anti-Americanism is concerned, there might be statements from the Soviet Union and/or China during the height of the Cold War that reliable sources would call "anti-American". Also, some communist groups in Latin America used rhetoric that sources might have termed "anti-American" (such as Sendero Luminoso in Peru, or in Cuba, where at one point a favorite slogan was Cuba si, Yankee no!). NightHeron (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Deleted last 2 paragraphs of section

Reasons: (1) poorly sourced (as far as I can see, the sources don't specifically support the use of the term "anti-American", and so use of the term is WP:OR); (2) the "back to Africa" and other such movements do not seem to fall under the definition of the term in the lead ("heavily critical of America", the wording used in the deleted text, is not the same as anti-Americanism); (3) most of the people in those movements were not communists (socialist views are not the same as communism); (4) the Confederate States are not discussed in the article as an example of anti-Americanism, so there's a lack of balance in describing secessionist sentiments among minority groups as being anti-American. NightHeron (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive_29&oldid=1215662178"